BlackBerry Forums Support Community

BlackBerry Forums Support Community (http://www.blackberryforums.com/index.php)
-   Sensitive Discussions (http://www.blackberryforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   President Obama and Evolution (http://www.blackberryforums.com/showthread.php?t=172128)

test54 02-26-2009 05:09 PM

I think once every 6 pages we are due to fire off some insults and then get back to business.

mriff 02-26-2009 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1300680)
"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Dr. John West's piece "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities." Link

I disagree with this person's discussion on intelligent design being any different than creationism. Both rely on supernatural powers to achieve an understanding of how life has formed and evolved. All the buzz words are in there including 'Darwinist'. If one believes in evolution, then one should not be termed a Darwinist. Darwin lived over 150 years ago and postulated on evolution in his research and writing. But to think nothing has happened since is crazy. Scientists have had 150 years to test, research, analyze and form new hypotheses about evolution. All contributing to an ever expanding body of knowledge.

All one has to do to see how this amazing transformation from creationists to intelligent design is occurring is to read the Wedge Strategy written by the Discovery Institute. It's a conscience effort to move away from the word creationism to a term that appears more benign. And it's working.

Anyway, this is a good post test. And I'd like to reserve additional comment.

mriff 02-26-2009 05:17 PM

Test, I would sure like your opinion on the document mentioned in post 458. Would you mind reading that and letting me know what you think?

test54 02-26-2009 05:21 PM

Well I understand that the evidence of the transformation of living things is the proof of evolution but does that mean that there is not a God who could have got the ball rolling and / or has some other involvement. To me this is where the science can only go so far as it cannot eliminate the theory of God or that God is the creator. Even with the Big Bang there is no evidence that answers all the questions let alone rules out God.

ps - i'll read 458 doc tonight.

djm2 02-26-2009 05:34 PM

He (dmead) has got a point.

djm2 02-26-2009 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1300716)
I disagree with this person's discussion on intelligent design being any different than creationism. Both rely on supernatural powers to achieve an understanding of how life has formed and evolved. All the buzz words are in there including 'Darwinist'. If one believes in evolution, then one should not be termed a Darwinist. Darwin lived over 150 years ago and postulated on evolution in his research and writing. But to think nothing has happened since is crazy. Scientists have had 150 years to test, research, analyze and form new hypotheses about evolution. All contributing to an ever expanding body of knowledge.

All one has to do to see how this amazing transformation from creationists to intelligent design is occurring is to read the Wedge Strategy written by the Discovery Institute. It's a conscience effort to move away from the word creationism to a term that appears more benign. And it's working.

Anyway, this is a good post test. And I'd like to reserve additional comment.

From a practical perspective I agree with you mriff -- I think that is what is going on as intelligent design is currently phrased. But let's remove the political context for a moment -- something that I am loathe to do as I am typing this because I suspect there will be another thread-jack -- and focus on the philosophy of science.

As you well know, the advances in evolutionary theory ultimately reduce to a series of assumptions that are, given our current level of knowledge, largely untestable assumptions. A long time ago in this thread I posted that there is a critical junction point that allows many people of faith to be both superb scientists and religious, and for most of them that junction point of the assumptions represented items that they had to, for now, accept on faith. If they had to accept that on faith, could they not also accept the existence of a god -- but without all of the specific baggage that a literal interpretation of the bible brings with it. These men and women do just that.

I will also read the manuscript that you (mriff) provided. I think that would make a good discussion piece and get us back on track (hopefully). Personally, I will try my best to simply ignore any disruptive influences.

JSanders 02-26-2009 06:08 PM

Here goes your threadjack, since you just invited it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1300783)
because I suspect there will be another thread-jack.
... I will try my best to simply ignore any disruptive influences.

Your warm and fuzzy intelligent discussion can't go past six posts (since dmead's request) until you resort to your neanderthal rants again.

Your inability to have that discussion without a sparring partner just isn't possible, is it?

djm2 02-26-2009 06:21 PM

Sigh.

mriff 02-26-2009 06:23 PM

JS, why don't you read the manuscript that has been posted. And let us know your thoughts.

djm2 02-26-2009 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1300810)
Here goes your threadjack, since you just invited it:



Your warm and fuzzy intelligent discussion can't go past six posts (since dmead's request) until you resort to your neanderthal rants again.

Your inability to have that discussion without a sparring partner just isn't possible, is it?

I'm sorry -- I simply could not resist. This comment seems to imply some acceptance of evolutionary thought.:oops:

jsconyers 02-26-2009 06:31 PM

This is all I am going to say.

mriff 02-26-2009 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54 (Post 1300730)
Well I understand that the evidence of the transformation of living things is the proof of evolution but does that mean that there is not a God who could have got the ball rolling and / or has some other involvement. To me this is where the science can only go so far as it cannot eliminate the theory of God or that God is the creator. Even with the Big Bang there is no evidence that answers all the questions let alone rules out God.

ps - i'll read 458 doc tonight.

Test, every scientist studying evolution will tell you that they are trying to understand the how. Not the why. That is a very key distinction. Science is trying to understand how evolution has occurred (not if it has occurred, since that is a given). No scientist out there, including the eminant evolutionary development biologist Sean Carroll (who happens to believe in God) will attempt to tell anyone why it has occurred. That is up to others to answer. I think that's a large part of the problem that people have in understanding why some scientists feel compelled to study our origins. They immediately resort to terms such as blasphemy. When all that is happening is that these people have a need to study and understand the natural world. To some of these scientists, studying and understanding the natural world around us is in their blood.

mriff 02-26-2009 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1300834)
I'm sorry -- I simply could not resist. This comment seems to imply some acceptance of evolutionary thought.:oops:

:razz: :razz: :razz:

JSanders 02-26-2009 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1300834)
I'm sorry -- I simply could not resist. This comment seems to imply some acceptance of evolutionary thought.:oops:

lol, you did make the invitation.

I'll say this, I am certainly comforted to know that you do worship it enough for the several others of us.

And, had that evolution train ever come down the track, I am also certainly comforted in knowing that apparently my ancestors got aboard far sooner than yours. ;-)

Good enough for you?

mriff 02-26-2009 07:06 PM

One post on topic. Can you do that? I doubt it.

mriff 02-26-2009 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1300783)
As you well know, the advances in evolutionary theory ultimately reduce to a series of assumptions that are, given our current level of knowledge, largely untestable assumptions. A long time ago in this thread I posted that there is a critical junction point that allows many people of faith to be both superb scientists and religious, and for most of them that junction point of the assumptions represented items that they had to, for now, accept on faith. If they had to accept that on faith, could they not also accept the existence of a god -- but without all of the specific baggage that a literal interpretation of the bible brings with it. These men and women do just that.

djm and others, i would encourage you to read Sean Carroll's books. Referenced earlier in this thread. Untestable assumptions are becoming fewer with new scientific thought. The science of evolutionary development is very recent. And allows specific and precise testing of various hypotheses. And not surprisingly, it ties into and adds to the evidence of evolution. The book I'm referring to is called Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo. This book focuses on development. And he continues to tie it all together in his second book, but on a molecular level with a very in depth analysis of all the current literature on DNA and gene research. It is called The Making of the Fittest. Trust me, it will astound you. Information on his lab can be found here:

Carroll lab

Edit: he focuses his writing on a few of the holy grails of creationism/intelligent design such as irreducible complexity. For instance, vision organs are no longer in the handbook of attacking points of the creationists. They are no longer irreducibly complex.

mriff 02-26-2009 07:51 PM

Link sent to me by a friend and colleague. Unbelievable. The writer fails to mention how humans murder each other every day, in untold masses. And have throughout time. We should all look to the bonobos as a basis for society. ;-) (Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Is the Chimp-Mauling Darwin's Fault?

djm2 02-26-2009 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1300929)
Link sent to me by a friend and colleague. Unbelievable. The writer fails to mention how humans murder each other every day, in untold masses. And have throughout time. We should all look to the bonobos as a basis for society. ;-) (Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Is the Chimp-Mauling Darwin's Fault?

Well the bonobos do have a good relationship with sexuality, which is a big reinforcer.

On a more serious level, the linkages made by the author (McDowell) pander to fears. A significant issue in this whole debate is that fear is a bigger seller than truth. Unfortunate but true.

mriff 02-26-2009 10:03 PM

So what did you guys think about Barbara Forrest's position paper? I just read it. So I'm ready for your comments. I'll wait to read others comments before making any of my own.

mriff 02-26-2009 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1301071)
Well the bonobos do have a good relationship with sexuality, which is a big reinforcer.

Indeed.
Quote:

On a more serious level, the linkages made by the author (McDowell) pander to fears. A significant issue in this whole debate is that fear is a bigger seller than truth. Unfortunate but true.
A classic Wedge strategy. Although I don't think the more intelligent of the intelligent designers would resort to such nonsense. They know it doesn't help them in the long run. The more effective strategies are more nuanced. The writer of this article was pandering to the base more than anything else. But it's still shocking nonetheless.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.