Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 2,651-2,678 next last
To: AntiGuv; donh
Because when people post nonsense, such as you've posted in your characterization of Galileo, then others are compelled to correct the nonsense.

I only read this sentence. Since it is incorrect, I'd rather focus on this and see about the rest later.

You believe what I posted as nonsense, but that doesn't make it so. The fact that you call any opinion that doesn't match your own "nonsense" is part of the problem at FR. It is possible I am talking about something you don't know.

I didn't bring the book in, but I reviewed my copy of "The Soul of Science" by Nancy Pearcy last night. She has a few pages on the issues between Galileo and the Catholic Church. I was recalling them correctly, the battle between Galileo and the Church was not a battle about scientific truth. In fact, many scholars in the Church already supported the heliocentric theory.

However, I had oversimplified. It was actually a battle about the philosophical underpinings of science. The Church based their scientific approach on Aristotle and believe this was a requirement to the notion of moral authority. Galileo had to challenge Aristotle (sorry, I don't remember the detail) and the Church took this as a challenge to its own ability to maintain a moral code. The Pope and Galileo had been friends. The Pope had even been a "follower" of Galileo in the science realm. But the Church's desire to hold on to this power put them at odds. The battle got ugly and it became a political mess.

In the same way as Luther could have avoided the Reformation if he hadn't called the Pope the Anti-Christ, Galileo might have avoided the false split between Church and Science if he hadn't turned it into a personal crusade. But that's not to blame either radical. The Church should be big enough to handle a challenge without getting nasty itself and, IMO, enjoys the lion's share of the blame.

I meant to bring the book in and provide a couple of quotes and some footnotes, but I left it at home. You can read the book yourself. But to say the battle was about faith vs. science is as gross an oversimplification as to say that the US Civil War was about slavery.

Shalom.

701 posted on 05/26/2005 6:11:51 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

You forgot to mention the part where Galileo "misbehaved"; that was the point of disagreement.


702 posted on 05/26/2005 6:15:49 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: donh
Ahhgh! More of this balony. The heliocentric theory of the universe was in direct conflict with central teachings of the catholic church, whether many in the church believed it or not was irrelevant.

So, another in the fine FR school who calls anything you don't know "baloney" (although the previous post was "nonsense"). See Post 701.

What you show here is a phenominal lack of understanding of how the Church changes. It does change and it might have changed. Just as the Church would have changed to accomodate Luther on the issue of indulgences, and was about to do so, but they had a sticky problem of the fact that Luther had been calling the Pope "Anti-Christ."

The church has changed its stance in relation to scientific discovery many times and will continue to do so. It will not accept a challenge to its spiritual authority.

BTW: I believe the Church's stance on evolution is one you would agree with, which makes most of this focus on Galileo moot. And nobody has ever discussed Bacon, Linnaeus, or Newton. Neither science and faith, nor science and Church, are in opposition except in the minds of a few. That was the central point that we seem to have strayed from.

Shalom.

703 posted on 05/26/2005 6:19:15 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Again, your constant ability to grossly misunderstand what I've actually written is quite simply amazing.

Arguing from amazement, for evolutionists, is supposed to be a logically and scientifically bankrupt practice. But just as you use the tools of intelligence the Creator gave you while denying His creation, you are free to use arguments which, for the other side of the debate, are unacceptable. To be a reliable source of bad information, to be consistently inconsistent, is at least consistent. Way to go.

704 posted on 05/26/2005 6:19:36 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
There are politicians in Kansas redefining the meaning of science . . .

No, they are rescuing the meaning of science from those who would introduce unjustifiable bias to the pursuit of knowledge.

705 posted on 05/26/2005 6:21:46 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It's also interesting to note that all the "old world" (OW) and "new world" (NW) army ants are separate branches of the oldest split of the army ant family tree.

This is also an indication of continental drift (or less likely, ant drift.) Tree trees show the same split. It's possible that a group of proto-ants were carried (perhaps by an African proto-sparrow) from one contenent to another and their descendents drifted genetically from the mother nest, but not so likely with both ants and trees.

706 posted on 05/26/2005 6:21:48 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yes, you are, you post using an pseudonym.

Once again you bludgeon with your own stupidity. Pure Creation Science. In fact, you get the gore3000 memorial you-can't-make-me-see award. I don't have to volunteer my first name to complete the picture. Anyone who wants to click on my profile can see I'm Doug Kalbaugh from Keyser, WV. That's more information than you have the nerve to provide, little man.

Looking over your whole dance of ignorance last night, I'd leave plausible deniability too if I posted like that. Now I'm going to follow Patrick's advice, however, and put you on virtual ignore for at least the rest of this thread.

707 posted on 05/26/2005 6:24:50 AM PDT by VadeRetro ( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Exactly how is the teaching of whether the earth revolves around the sun or vise versa a means of holding power over the affairs of men?

I just finished going thru this with the last bizarre historical revisionist on this thread--the church was treatened because of a very ornate cosmology it had tied to the bible, and really staked quite a lot of stock in, in their presentation of theology to the largely illiterate masses of Europe, which you can sort of get a picture of if you pick up Dante's Inferno and check out the illustration either at the back or the front--when most of your flock is illiterate, you put a lot of emphasis on illustrations--and that is exactly what the church did. This picture puts the earth at the center focus of the universe, and, therefore, of special concern to God. If the earth isn't the center of the universe, than possibly humans aren't the center of God's concerns, and possibly God's spokesmen here on earth aren't actually all the important in the overall working of human affairs.

It was not only the church that held Ptolemy's view in Galileo's day, but science in general. Galileo was scorned by both sacred and secular parties. He didn't help his cause in presenting himself as an acerbic know-it-all.

Good grief, another one.

What is this, abysmal historical ignorance week?

Galileo was not "scorned by both sacred and secular parties", he was very highly regarded in his day, not least by the Pope himself. Where do you get this stuff? He was brought to trial by the inquisition precisely because he wasn't as you've characterized him, and because his book on the subject was selling like hotcakes on a greased griddle in a Europe thick with reformation sentiment and newly awakening scientific interest that made people like Newton and Galileo celebrities.

For two people to come up with this loopy take on history in the same thread suggests to me that there is a creationist ammo site somewhere that's got a recent bee in it's bonnet about Galileo--c'mon, fess up.

708 posted on 05/26/2005 6:25:14 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Paul (Saul of Tarsus) never saw Jesus in the flesh or resurrected or in any tangible form.

First, we do not know whether Saul saw Jesus before He died. Since Saul was politically active in Jerusalem it is likely that he was present for much of what happened to Jesus. Our first reference to Saul is that he was present at the stoning of Stephen, but that is only the first reference.

He also did not spend 3 days in a coma, but blind. He was alert for those three days.

You can ignore the claims in Galatians 1 if you wish, but they are entirely consistent with other claims of the apperance of the Resurrected Christ made at the time.

Shalom.

709 posted on 05/26/2005 6:28:48 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

dexter
dextral
recto
starboard


As opposed to

sinister
port
larboard


710 posted on 05/26/2005 6:29:10 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

"dextralate"


711 posted on 05/26/2005 6:29:39 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
phenomena which are observable, repeatable and verifiable

You mean phenomena such as the development of resistance to antibiotics seen in bacterial colonies that are exposed to antibiotics? You mean phenomena such as all new fossil finds lining up correctly with the phylogentic tree derived from microbiological studies. You mean the phenomenon of DNA sequences observably, repeatably and verifiably lining up with what is predicted by evolution? You mean the observable, verifiable and repeatable pheomenon of speciation which has in fact been observed by multiple observers and has been verified? Just some of the observable, repeatable and verifiable observations that are evidence in favor of evolution.

Is there interpretation leading from these observations to the theory of evolution? Of course there is. However, there's nothing in science that forbids making interpretations. Just as I showed with my example, there are plenty of interpretations leading from the direct observations to the laws of thermodynamics. There are plenty of interpretations leading from observation even to something as well accepted as the law of gravity. For example, the law of gravity says more than just "things fall down." It says that ANY two bodies in the universe will attract each other, and it gives a formula for calculating this attractive force. Surely there must be some interpretation here. Otherwise please point me to the study in which a direct measurement of the attractive force between the star Sirius and the planet Uranus has been made. Surely its unscientific to just assume that the attraction would be given by Newton's law of gravity.

712 posted on 05/26/2005 6:30:43 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
You are correct. It was #91. Forgive me.

I do still interpret it as a broad brush statement that is bigoted and unworthy. Science and technology do mix well with faith. There are a few instances of problems between faith and science. These usually turn out to be more political in nature than faith-oriented. But a great number of very faith-full scientists and technologists.

Shalom.

713 posted on 05/26/2005 6:32:14 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
You forgot to mention the part where Galileo "misbehaved"; that was the point of disagreement.

When the disagreement became "ugly" it became so on both sides.

Again, I am not claiming moral equivalence between the two. I put a far greater responsibility for good behavior on the Church than on any individual.

Shalom.

714 posted on 05/26/2005 6:33:32 AM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: cyborg; narby

Looks like they're starting to quote mine evo FR posts, and not just published literature.


715 posted on 05/26/2005 6:34:25 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
I meant to bring the book in and provide a couple of quotes and some footnotes, but I left it at home. You can read the book yourself. But to say the battle was about faith vs. science is as gross an oversimplification as to say that the US Civil War was about slavery.

The Civil war was about slavery--there would not have been a civil war over any other conflict of interest without the fulcrum of slavery, and Galileo's Trial was, above all else, about the church suppressing science it found disagreeable.

One can always point to subsidiary issues revolving about an historical event, and try to wrap one's vision about one's own peculiar notions of what's essential to history, but I don't recommend it as a general practice, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your cotton-pickin' hands off the history department, as well as the biology department, at the next schoolboard meeting.

716 posted on 05/26/2005 6:36:01 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: TomB; Tantumergo

Correct. Behe is not a creationist. His idea is intelligent design, which everyone is so careful to point out is not the same as creationism (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)


717 posted on 05/26/2005 6:38:08 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
A)His views on religion are Marxist". B)"I never claimed Marxism was a religion

Professor, take a vacation. If you think A) proves your assertion disavowed by me in B) you've been working too much.

Alternatively I could take a page out of the "lists" book and call you a liar if it is required by the rules as I asked EdSheppa. But he never answered, he just called me a liar again.

So, do the rules require me to call you a liar when we disagree?

718 posted on 05/26/2005 6:39:00 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
When the disagreement became "ugly" it became so on both sides.

Interesting. You forgot to describe any 'ugliness' on Galileo's side.

719 posted on 05/26/2005 6:40:41 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Why would anybody click on your profile?

I live in Danielson, Ct Doug. Drop by any time.

720 posted on 05/26/2005 6:41:14 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: Baraonda
In the end, I believe this issue will be resolved in the streets, not through words or persuation or hiding behind a monitor.

No. Science is about things that turn up when one investigates nature itself. Political and military power can only bury the truth for a time, in a place. The Church supported geocentrism over the growing evidence against it. For a time in a place, it won. Stalin supported Lysenkoism over genetics and evolution. For a time in a place, he won. However, nature was still out there to be investigated and there were no victories over that.

The evidence doesn't go away. You don't change it in the streets. The diversity of life on Earth shows common descent with variation and natural selection. If it was suppressed today and all the books were burned, someone would figure it out again in a week.

721 posted on 05/26/2005 6:42:04 AM PDT by VadeRetro ( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
... [theistic evolution] is also the cruelest, most inefficient system for creation imaginable…

Reconcile this with the fact that places like MIT are copying the evolutionary process and using genetic algorithms as efficient problem solving strategies?

722 posted on 05/26/2005 6:42:18 AM PDT by Condorman (Changes aren't permanent, but change is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Junior

True.


723 posted on 05/26/2005 6:42:28 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Hipparchus made some attempts at measuring parallax.
724 posted on 05/26/2005 6:42:41 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Mind naming one?

G. A. Magnini.

It would be more difficult to name a scientist in Galileo's day who did not subscribe to Aristotelianism where the "natural" sciences were concerned. Galileo represents a manner and degree of inquiry that outstripped the best of them. Fortunately he did not give up in the face of persecution.

Today the picture is much the same. The power, authority, egoism, and ignorance rests in the hands of a few who bring only unjustifiable bias to the pursuit of knowledge, namely dogmatic evolutionists.

725 posted on 05/26/2005 6:43:15 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: armymarinedad

I also think part of the problem is that creationists don't understand that evolution doesn't even attempt to provide all the answers. Evolution deals only with a limited scope, namely the development of different varieties of organisms. I can't count the number of times that creationists argue that evolution can't be true because "life can't arise from nonliving matter" or that they deride evolutionists for believing that "there was nothing and then that nothing exploded." Evolution doesn't attempt to answer the questions of the origin of the universe or even the origin of life. Even within its scope, however, scientists are more than willing to admit that they might be wrong. However, it seems that it is the details that are debatable currently. It seems unlikely that the overall idea of genetic variability leading to all the species of life will be found to be wrong. Creationists even seize upon the debate over the details, however, in a desparate attempt to show that evolution is in trouble.


726 posted on 05/26/2005 6:44:28 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Remember to include them in the "special thanks"! :-)


727 posted on 05/26/2005 6:47:43 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Creationism is not conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire

Now included in The List-O-Links.

728 posted on 05/26/2005 6:50:45 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Unless you can show an in context Dawkins quote where he advocates banning (dictionary meaning: an official prohibition or edict) religion or show in some other way that he has advocated it, then you are just another Creationist liar.

Whoa, now here's an original thought. I'm a Creationist liar if I don't make Ed drink at the trough he's been led to.

Ed, the word liar has lost all meaning on these threads. But feel free to continue using it, it amuses me. :-}

729 posted on 05/26/2005 6:52:10 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
It's possible that a group of proto-ants were carried (perhaps by an African proto-sparrow)

What is the airspeed of an African proto-sparrow laden with army ants?

730 posted on 05/26/2005 6:55:00 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
What you show here is a phenominal lack of understanding of how the Church changes. It does change and it might have changed. Just as the Church would have changed to accomodate Luther on the issue of indulgences, and was about to do so, but they had a sticky problem of the fact that Luther had been calling the Pope "Anti-Christ."

The church has changed its stance in relation to scientific discovery many times and will continue to do so. It will not accept a challenge to its spiritual authority.

BTW: I believe the Church's stance on evolution is one you would agree with, which makes most of this focus on Galileo moot. And nobody has ever discussed Bacon, Linnaeus, or Newton. Neither science and faith, nor science and Church, are in opposition except in the minds of a few. That was the central point that we seem to have strayed from.

Gimme a break, general Catholic apologetics wasn't on the table in this discussion up until now, but, as long as you've asked...

The church behaves itself better now because the rise of the nation-states and the reformation pulled it's fangs. The building in the Vatican used to house the children of jews kidnapped by the church to be raised christian didn't fall into disuse until after the US Civil War, and the church's stance on evolution didn't heel to until 1996. About the only interesting thing you've said, apropos to this debate, is "It [The Church] will not accept a challenge to its spiritual authority."

And that, dear hearts, is what has been wrong with this arrogant church for 1400 years, and why it is, quite rightly, synonymous with the bogeyman in the hearts of so many Jewish and Muslim children--way too many of their ancestors murdered by deputies of a church that "will not accept a challenge to its spiritual authority".

731 posted on 05/26/2005 6:55:00 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
I'm not on anybody's side.

Lighten up a little, you'll live longer and prosper.

I provide information. Not everyone is at the same knowledge level on every subject and I find discussions go better when the participants have enough information to be on a par with one another.

True enough.

In addition, because of the pervasive poor quality of teaching the basic sciences, many people think they know a good deal that is actually incorrect. It is not their fault if they trusted their teachers and it should not be used against them to score debate type points.

It should when they let their hubris outrun their knowledge base and they attempt to score "debate type points" based on erroneous information, assumptions or assertions.

Other than that I agree with you whole heartedly.

732 posted on 05/26/2005 6:56:57 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Many people who saw and relayed it back were killed. Not quick deaths mind you, but tortured under extreme measures to shut people up. You would think if this was just sacred fiction they would be subdued about the subject or even keep it a secret.

Obviously, the willingness of some people to engage in fanatical acts for their religion does not prove the truth thereof.

733 posted on 05/26/2005 6:58:04 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Reconcile this with the fact that places like MIT are copying the evolutionary process and using genetic algorithms as efficient problem solving strategies?

Sometimes effective, but really pretty hard to call efficient, problem solving strategies, given the right problem, entailing debugging and support challenges of substantial daunt-itude.

734 posted on 05/26/2005 6:59:23 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Torie
It seems to me that Dawkins is attacking the invocation of God as a substitute for, and an excuse not to engage in, rational scientific inquiry and analysis. His crack about God's gift to Kansas was a sarcastic jibe at this mindset. I don't see anything in his screed that is anti religion, or anti God.

I would classify the attitude you (accurately) describe in the first sentence as superstition, not religion. It reduces the transcendant God of true religion to the level of a primitive tribal sun/thunder/fertility/whatever god.

735 posted on 05/26/2005 7:01:55 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: donh
The church behaves itself better now because the rise of the nation-states and the reformation pulled its fangs.

There is some truth to that -- crediting the church with refraining from inquisitions, etc in modern times is sort of like crediting the Democrats for not raising our taxes since January 2001.

736 posted on 05/26/2005 7:04:03 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I'll get to your rather amusing post a bit later. Duty calls!


737 posted on 05/26/2005 7:05:28 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Hipparchus made some attempts at measuring parallax.

Very interesting. Other than seeing references to his name, I didn't know about him.

738 posted on 05/26/2005 7:07:10 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: UltraKonservativen
To conclude that because one believes in God, curiosity and the pursuit of scientific knowledge stops automatically is not supported by history or reality...not even in Kansas.

Alas! It is supported increasingly by recent history, especially in Kansas.

739 posted on 05/26/2005 7:07:21 AM PDT by VadeRetro ( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Creationists even seize upon the debate over the details, however, in a desperate attempt to show that evolution is in trouble.

From my vantage point, I'd say evolution *is* in trouble. Scientists are speaking out more and more about the limitations of the theory. What do you make of these two letters?

Link

----------------

Letters to the Editor

May 25, 2005

Sir, Like many biologists, Richard Dawkins (Weekend Review, May 21) views the theory of intelligent design merely as an attack on evolution when, being essentially identical to the anthropic principle, it has far wider implications. Such ideas should not be dismissed simply because they have been hijacked by creationists. Despite Dawkins’s relentless propaganda, rational criticism of evolution and a distaste for biological reductionism do not equate to religious fundamentalism; bigotry should be resisted from whichever direction it comes.

Yours faithfully,

MILTON WAINWRIGHT, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN. May 21.

-----------------------------------

From Professor Andy McIntosh

Sir, By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.

The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.

The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong.

Yours faithfully,

ANDY C. McINTOSH, (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory), Energy and Resources Research Institute, Houldsworth Building, University of Leeds, Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9JT. May 23.

-----------------

Stremba - literally EVERY DAY I read things from scientists telling me evolution has problems and alone can't account for the incredible complexity and biological systems on Earth and that ID should be given a fair shake. What am I and the general public to think? I mean, if it (evolution) were a SOLID theory, would we even be having this discussion?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

MM

740 posted on 05/26/2005 7:11:37 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I see. Well, am I correct to guess that your most probable source is The Great Galileo Myth, since that's the only apparent reference to this incredibly obscure individual that seems to appear on the Internet? If so, at least that gives me a basis upon which to proceed. The only description given there for this individual is: "an eminent astronomy professor at Bologna." What makes you think that this describes a secular party? Do you have something more to go on than this description? Perhaps a different source?

The University of Bologna was the preeminent Catholic university of its era. Its administration was led by bishops and cardinals; the papal legates were its supreme authority (source: New Advent). So, there is no clear basis that I can see to conclude that this G.A. Magnini is a "secular party" unless there's something more to go on. The text linked above does appear to suggest that Prof. Magnini had not viewed Jupiter through a telescope, for whatever that's worth..

Whatever the case may be, this G.A. Magnini is a rather flimsy basis upon with to make such a sweeping insinuation. LOL

741 posted on 05/26/2005 7:14:31 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; Heartlander; bondserv
There is a list of 300 scientists and researchers (PDF) that have agreed to the following statement,

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Hmmmm...I see there are quite a few scientists listed who are from Biology departments. Guess they just haven't visited Talkorg. or PH's links enough and don't know any better.

742 posted on 05/26/2005 7:22:12 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Whatever the case may be, this G.A. Magnini is a rather flimsy basis upon with to make such a sweeping insinuation.

I see. and was Aristotle, whose philosophy was the standard point of reference of the day, also an employee of the church?

743 posted on 05/26/2005 7:24:22 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Aristotle did not scorn Galileo.


744 posted on 05/26/2005 7:28:37 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: donh

Evolutionary algorithms (computer or natural) can be more efficient that one might assume. The selection phase converges exponentially fast to the (currently active) fitness function. The drift (mutation) phase moves rather fast too. While the average drift motion increases proportional to Sqrt(Time), the extremes go like Time. There are drifts that move so fast that the have infinte variation and average; these cover regions that are far apart; bees searching for flowers for example. I don't know if any such drifts occur in genetics, though.


745 posted on 05/26/2005 7:29:51 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Excellent! I enjoy posting it once in a while if just for the title. =)

That essay once used to be part of a much broader and very entertaining website that I stumbled across back in 1999 iirc, but which sadly vanished some while ago into the ethers of cyberspace. =(


746 posted on 05/26/2005 7:38:31 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
What is wrong with you guys? Virtual Ignore is the only appropriate response. You're letting a good thread degenerate into utter putridity.

Kinda like the good ol' days of the ALS and Jesse Show for a bit there, yes.

747 posted on 05/26/2005 7:42:02 AM PDT by VadeRetro ( Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Aristotle did not scorn Galileo.

The proponents of his philosophy did.

748 posted on 05/26/2005 7:44:32 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Either the Bible is the Word of G-d and believed by the Christians or it is not...you can't have it both ways. I will continue to believe a higher power much smarter and with a much better imagination designed the heavens and the earth. We are all individually different for a reason. The big bang did "NOT" bring about such a design. The earth having enough oxygen, food, water, etc for humans and animals along with resources designed in such a way to take care of mankind did not happen because a scientist said a boom took place in the universe... do you realize how asinine that sounds? There is a Creator and if people who are so into themselves can't admit there is a Creator then so be it. If you wish not to believe in G-d's word then that is your problem not mine. The point to all of this is, he was bashing believers. As for me, I choose to believe.

Thanks !
749 posted on 05/26/2005 7:46:48 AM PDT by Paige ("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

The said proponents of his philosophy were agents of the Church.


750 posted on 05/26/2005 7:47:39 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 2,651-2,678 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson