Reflectorites
On Sun, 14 May 2000 16:55:12 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
Subject: Re: Scientists Complete Map of Second Human Chromosome, etc.
[...]
>SJ>[More support for the "out of Africa"
>>theory. The migration of early modern humans to the Levant near is
>>perhaps concordant with the brief Biblical statement: "Now the LORD God
>>had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had
>>formed." (Gn 2:8)?]
CL>But Africa is in the south.
I realise that. But the Bible does not say where man was "formed". It only
says where man was "put" after he was "formed".
CL>Do you mean that nothing counted until a caucasian
>strain arose and colonized the eastern Mediterranean?
I didn't say anything about "nothing counted" nor did I said anything about
"a caucasian strain". I am talking about the origin of *all* modern Homo
sapiens, including *all* its sub-species (Caucasians, Negroids, Mongoloids
and Australoids, etc), about 100,000 years ago.
It is my claim that *all* modern Homo sapiens descended from a single
pair (or perhaps a small population), in the general area of the high plateau
of ancient Anatolia (in present day Eastern Turkey).
CL>That the earlier people
>were just part of the process of formation from the dust of the ground?
I would not say they were "just part of". Like all living beings they
also had their own part to play in God's overall plan.
But I am claiming that those of these "earlier people" (to use Cliff's
words) who were ancestral to modern Homo sapiens, were part of the
process of God forming man from the dust of the ground (Gn 2:7).
On Sat, 13 May 2000 13:51:38 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design 2/3
[...]
>>SB>there is no "anti-ID" Science is unable to address ID. It's religion.
RW>I must disgree with you here, Susan. Science is not *in principle* unable to
>address ID. Suppose we discovered, encoded in our DNA, a complex message of
>the sort received by SETI in the book/film "Contact". I would consider that
>to be compelling scientific evidence of ID.
I thank Richard for this important admission that ID is not in principle
unscientific.
RW>Nevertheless, I consider the present ID movement to be religiously-motivated
>(in most cases) pseudo-science, because its proponents
>falsely claim to have found evidence of ID in nature when they haven't,
>and give their claims the trappings (but not the substance) of science.
Even if this were true, it commits the genetic fallacy, i.e. "it attacks the
source or genesis of the opposing position rather than that position itself."
(Copi I.M., Introduction to Logic," 1986, p.92). Indeed, even if "the
present ID movement" *was* "religiously-motivated", if the Designer is
real, then being "religiously-motivated" would be an advantage!
But in fact "the present ID movement" is not *simply* "religiously-
motivated". There are "religiously-motivated" people (e.g. TEs) who are
opposed to "the present ID movement" and, as I have said many times
before (and it will eventually come out) there is at least one member of "the
present ID movement" who is a religiously agnostic philosopher.
RW>I also think it's extremely unlikely that they will find such evidence in
>the future, not just because I don't believe that nature is designed,
Clearly if Richard holds the prior belief "that nature is designed", then he is
likely to also believe that "it's extremely unlikely that they will find such
evidence in the future".
RW>but
>because, even if it is, it's clear that the designer has been extremely
>careful to avoid leaving behind any evidence.
First, even if this were true, it would not be an argument against design.
Science has had to work hard to find the laws hidden deep within nature.
But no one says the laws can't exist because they are hard to find. Indeed,
that there are laws hidden deep within nature is part of the overall
argument from design!
Second, design isn't all hidden. The vast majority of mankind has always
believed that there is "evidence" of design in nature. Even the atheist
Richard Dawkins admits it:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," 1991, p.1)
So does the agnostic Paul Davies:
"The impression of design is overwhelming." (Davies P.C.W, "The Cosmic
Blueprint," 1995, p.203).
RW>I suppose it's conceivable
>that the designer acted in such a way as to ensure we wouldn't detect his
>involvement until we reached a certain level of scientific advancement.
Richard is getting "detect his involvement" confused with *establishing
scientifically* "his involvement". *All* human beings *without exception*
have intuitively "detect his involvement" but, like all circumstantial
evidence, it is possible to explain it away if one is sufficiently motivated so
to do (Romans 1:18ff).
Dembski is trying to establish scientifically what all human beings
intuitively recognise. Whether he is able to do this remains to be seen.
Personally I doubt that it will be possible to absolutely *prove* design.
In everyday life people make their decisions (and even civil law cases are
decided) `on the balance of probabilities'. It would therefore be sufficient
for the Designer to only supply sufficient evidence that `on the balance of
probabilities' there is a Designer.
That way no one will be *forced* to believe in a Designer, which is
important from Christian theology's point of view that only willing
volunteers (not unwilling conscripts) are wanted in Christ's `army'.
RW>But why should we think that we've reached that level now?
This presupposes that we are going to reach a significantly higher "level of
scientific advancement". It is the thesis of Horgan (and others) that science,
because of its very past success, is rapidly running into a situation of
diminishing returns, and the "end of science" is in sight:
"Pure science, the quest for knowledge about what we are and where we
came from, has already entered an era of diminishing returns. By far the
greatest barrier to future progress in pure science is its past success.
Researchers have already mapped out physical reality, ranging from the
microrealm of quarks and electrons to the macrorealm of planets, stars. and
galaxies. Physicists have shown that all matter is ruled by a few basic
forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
... My guess is that this narrative that scientists have woven from their
knowledge, this modern myth of creation, will be as viable 100 or even
1,000 years from now as it is today. Why? Because it is true. Moreover,
given how far science has ahead come, and given the physical,-social, and
cognitive limits constraining farther research, science is unlikely to make
any significant additions to the knowledge it has already generated. There
will be no great revelations in the future comparable to those bestowed
upon us by Darwin or Einstein or Watson and Crick." (Horgan J., "The
End of Science," 1997, p.16)
So it may well be, even on Richard's own thesis, that: "it's conceivable that
the designer acted in such a way as to ensure we wouldn't detect his
involvement until we reached a certain level of scientific advancement";
that that time is indeed *now*!
On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:55:12 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
Subject: Re: this is interesting
SB>I *think* something like this has been posted here before, but I can't
>recall (this isn't my only evolution list). If so, here it is again:
This PFAWF report at: http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//show.cgi?article=952702330
(here repeated by the American Geological Institute), has been criticised by
the newsletter of STATS the Statistical Assessment Service, a watchdog
group that analyzes the misuse of statistics, as not fairly reflecting what the
poll actually found:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0004/evolution.htm
[...]
To summarize the media's take, Americans want evolution rather than
creationism in the classroom, except for the majority which wants
creationism taught, and leaving aside the "overwhelming" number who
want creationism and evolution to both be taught. This is clearly an
evolving position.
So what the survey actually find? The data show that 83 percent of
Americans support the teaching of evolution, but 79 percent also accept
the place of creationism in the curriculum. While nearly half regarded
evolution as a theory "far from being proven scientifically," fully 68 percent
regarded an evolutionary explanation of human presence to be compatible
with a belief in the role of God "creating" and "guiding" human
development. Only 20 percent thought that schools should teach only
evolution, with no mention of creationism.
In this case, a genuinely ambivalent finding was rendered by various
reporters in the manner of the blind men and the elephant, each grasping a
portion of the data and proclaiming the character of the whole. As The
New York Times article noted, "people on all sides of the issue seemed to
find something to like in the study." In fact, Daniel Yankelovich, chairman
of DYG, noted, "You can read the poll as half-empty or half-full."
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
SB>New Poll Results Show Vast Majority of Americans Support Teaching of Evolution
>
>A recent poll commissioned by the People For the American Way Foundation
>(PFAWF) reports that 83% of Americans think that evolution should be
>taught in public >school science classes.
The PFAWF own press release says "83% of Americans say *Darwin's theory
of* evolution belongs in the nation's science classes" (my emphasis).
The ID movement would heartily agree! But what the ID Movement would
add is that the philosophical assumptions and problems with "Darwin's theory
of evolution" also "belongs in the nation's science classes"!
SB>About 70% of Americans feel that the Bible and evolutionary go hand in
>hand,
This is another adverse result for the Darwinists.
It shows that the public either doesn't fully understand what "Darwin's theory
of evolution" is, or they do understand it, they reject the Darwinists' own anti-
design spin that ever since Darwin they have put on it.
SB>a contrast with
>the contention of biblical literalists who argue that the two are in
>conflict.
This is disingenous. It is *also* the position of the leading
*Darwinists* that "the Bible and evolution" "are in conflict.
SB>According to a March
>10th PFAWF press release, "most Americans believe that God created
>evolution."
This is another adverse result for the Darwinists. If "God created
evolution" is allowed to be taught in science textbooks and classes, then it
is not going to be long before some smart kids are going to wake up that if
there really is (or even could be) a "God" who "created evolution", then
there is no reason to think that He could not have done *more* than just
create evolution!
SB>This poll
>differs from previously conducted polls because it focuses solely on the
>evolution/creationist
>issue instead of including it in a broader list of topics. About 13% of
>Americans think that
>creationism should be taught in science class alongside evolution, and 16%
>think that it should
>be taught in place of evolution.
So this makes 13%+16%=29%, or almost 1 in every 3 members of the
American *public* (not just Christians) who believe that "creationism
should be taught in science class" with or without "evolution"!
And that is presumably young-Earth "creationism". So imagine how many
would be in favour of "Intelligent Design" being taught? No wonder the
Darwinist science establishment are so worried and are desperate to keep
trying to portray this as the ICR vs everybody else.
SB>Among those favoring evolution:
>
> 20% feel that creationism should not be mentioned,
Another adverse result. Of "those favoring evolution" 80% either thought
that creationism *should* be mentioned, or were not opposed to it being
mentioned.
SB> 17% feel that creationism could be mentioned in classes other than
>science classes, and
Even when this has been done (e.g. in social studies classes), the
Darwinists have sometimes threatened lawsuits.
If kids go to a biology class in one period where they are taught that
"Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes
superfluous" (Futuyma D.J., "Evolutionary Biology," 1986, p.2) and the
next period go to a social studies class where they are taught that Darwin's
theory and creation are just two proposed explanations of what *might*
have happened, with the underlying philosophical assumptions and
problems of each, then some of them are going to wonder why they are
only taught about Darwin's explanation in science classes.
SB> 29% feel that creationism could be discussed in science class, but
>should be presented as a belief instead of a science.
So even "Among those favoring evolution" 46% (or almost half)
believe that "creationism could be mentioned in" as part of
the curiculum in public schools?
And *more* of "those favoring evolution" believe that
"creationism could be discussed in science class"!
The proviso "as a belief" should not matter since Darwinism itself is "a
belief". There is no hard evidence that every mutation in the 3.8 billion year
history of life has been random and that *all* (or even most) design was
built up by natural selection. As Opadia-Kadima says, "the biologists' belief
in the creative power of chance soon equalled or surpassed the Christian
belief in the creative power of God":
"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the
effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most
profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the
favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed,
without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then
everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance.
Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of
mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance
soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of
God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists
Astray," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp.127-135,
p.129)
SB>The poll shows that 60% of Americans reject the Kansas Board's 1999
>decision to take evolution off of its list of state science standards.
Since "the Kansas Board" did *not* "take evolution off of its list of state
science standards" but actually *increased* the amount of evolution in its
1999 science standards, over that in its previous 1975 science standards,
this is testimony to the power of Darwinist propaganda!
Was it Goebbels who said: "Repeat a lie long enough and everyone will
come to believe that it is true"?
SB>The results of the poll also showed that there is broad agreement that
>creationist beliefs should be acknowledged,
Even that would be a *disaster* for the Darwinists if "creationist beliefs
should be acknowledged" in textbooks and public schools! It would open
up a Pandora's box where it would quickly become clear that there are
more "creationist beliefs" (e.g. old-Earth/Progressive Creation, etc) than
the usual young-Earth/Flood geology stereotype.
SB>but not taught as a science,
This would be OK for now. But Darwinists are well aware that once
creationism (of any sort) obtained official recognition in school curricula
and textbooks, it would allow a Trojan horse in which would eventually
destroy Darwinism's long-held monopoly.
SB>and that the presentation of evolution and creationism in the classroom
>should follow national standards.
This too would be a disaster for the Darwinists. If "national standards"
were to be set for "the presentation of evolution and creationism in the
classroom" the Darwinists would have to allow representatives of
"creationism" (of all stripes) to have meaningful input into that process.
If that was done publicly in nationally televised hearings that alone would
blow the lid off the Darwinist monopoly!
BTW there is a delicious irony to this. Since the Darwinists have been
assiduous in portraying Intelligent Design as "Intelligent Design
Creationism", they would not be able to prevent ID representatives like
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski, from having a seat at
that table!
SB>http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/evolution.html
Remember this was a poll commissioned by Darwinists! Like a man caught
in quicksand, the more the Darwinists struggle against creationism/ID the
worse it gets for them. They obviously do not understand the nature of
publicity - their very attacking of creationism/ID is creating a demand for it
in the mind of the general public to be taught in public schools.
The Darwinists' best strategy always was to do just ignore creationism/ID,
and tough it out from their secure positions in academia. But being convinced
by their own propaganda that Darwinism is true, and that creationism/ID is
just a minority position held by some red-necked Bible thumpers, they
cannot believe that they could *really* be in danger. They are doomed to
repeat the same mistake of all self-appointed power elites-that of grossly
underestimating their opposition until it is too late!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants
within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin C.R.,
letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds.,
"More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of
Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, pp.20-
21)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 18 2000 - 10:00:15 EDT