Skip to comments.Delusions of Evolution
Posted on 04/04/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Lets see what one of the biggest defenders of evolution has to say about this so called theory that is scientifically provable. Ok?
One of the biggest defenders of the theory of evolution is a scientist named, Michael Ruse.
Nice try. Michael Ruse is not a scientist. He's a philosopher and historian.
In 2005 five he wrote a book titled "The Evolution Creation Struggle". Mr Ruse wrote his book as a defense against the growing evidence that supports intelligent design.
No, he didn't. He wrote it as an overview of the clash of cultures.
And there is no "growing evidence that supports intelligent design". There is a growing volume of false ID propaganda which is dishonestly claimed to be "growing evidence" by its proponents. I've been following the "ID" movement since day one, and examined the so-called evidence they've proferred. It's PR, not evidence.
Here is and excerpt from what he wrote on page 287 of his book, "My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather a clash between two religions."
That's nice and all, but Ruse is not a scientist, and as he makes entirely clear in the introduction of his book (you *have* actually read it, I hope), he's not addressing the actual state of the *science* here, he's addressing the "culture clash". The *clash* in his view is due mostly to those with opposing worldviews, *not* a clash over the science itself. He makes this clear in the introduction when he makes a distinction between "evolution" (the science) and "evolutionism" (a metaphysical worldview which incorporates parts of evolution). In the intro, he writes, "At the most basic level, the clash is between those who push some form of evolutionism and those who push some form of creaitonism -- a clash between two rival metaphysical world pictures."
Could you please explain why you misrepresented his actual view by presenting the passage from page 253 out of context?
And could you also please explain why you mispresented this passage as a statement about the validity of the *science* of evolutionary biology, when it most certainly was NOT?
Let me say that I totally agree with Mr Ruse on his analogy, this is a battle between two religions.
Even if that were the case -- if the culture clash over evolution was based on metaphysical worldviews and not in large part also a battle between those who feel it is very imporant that valid science not be dishonestly maligned by those who wish to shout it down out of a misplaced belief that it's a threat to their religion -- that still wouldn't magically turn his comment into any kind of statement on the validity of the science, since that's NOT the topic he was addressing.
So again, please explain why you misrepresented this passage as what Ruse has to say about "this so called theory that is scientifically provable" when that's not what he was saying?
But since you like Ruse as some kind of authority, let's check out some of his *other* comments which more directly bear on whether he considers evolutionary biology credible or anti-evolution positions to be an improvement, shall we?
How about: ". . . the Creationists fail entirely to make their case. Their arguments are rotten, through and through." (Darwinism Defended, p. 321). How about: "[Interview question:] Is it appropriate to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in biology class? [Ruse's answer:] I do not think it appropriate to teach non-science in a biology class especially non-science that is really a form of literalist Christianity in disguise. Even if it were appropriate, I would not want the kind of conservative evangelical religion taught, that I think ID represents." (Paul Comstock inverview with Ruse, April 2007). How about: "[describing his court testimony:] Technically speaking, they were just trying to show that creation science is not science. So my job as a philosopher was to testify as to the nature of science and the nature of religion, and show that evolution is science, and creation science is religion." (Interview in March/April 2009 issue of "The Believer").
Gee, it turns out that Ruse really does consider evolution to be valid science, and creation science and "ID" to be not science. How about that?
But since you like Ruse as some kind of authority, let's check out some of his *other* comments which more directly bear on whether he considers evolutionary biology credible or anti-evolution positions to be an improvement, shall we? [excerpt]You like Michael Ruse?
‘Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.’ —Michael Ruse [link]
don’t want to reword anything, don’t want to show you anything. If your interested in what post called names first, check it out yourself...don’t even want to hear from you again...wouldn’t want you to waste time being childish.. :O)
Not really. You're mistaking me for OneVike.
Through long experience, I tend not to find the ruminations of philosophers very reliable when it comes to how science actually works. The same goes for lawyers.
Since Lamborhinis don't reproduce, don't pass on heritable variations, and aren't acted upon by selection, it's pretty safe to say that Lamborghinis, unlike living things, didn't get here via evolution, because those are the processes which need to be present for evolution to occur.
I'd say some form of Intelligent Design created it.
In the case of the Lamborghini, you'd be right. In the case of living things, you'd be wrong if you said that they haven't evolved.
Don't compare typewriters and oranges in inappropriate ways. There are a large number of very significant differences between wristwatches and oak trees.
You're mistaking me for OneVike. [excerpt]No.
Through long experience, I tend not to find the ruminations of philosophers very reliable when it comes to how science actually works. [excerpt]Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?
No I do not like him. I used him as an example of how one of their icons think evolution is a religion. [excerpt]
… including his close friend and Dawkins. [excerpt]Dawkins. (Another useful idiot)
Wow, that's pathetic. I pointed out that you had misrepresented what Ruse had said, and I asked you to explain why you had done that, and now the best you can do is to falsely accusing me of "jumping on Ruse" and falsely accusing me of claiming to be smarter/better than a bunch of people, instead of explaining yourself.
Then in a subsequent post you just repeat the quote you had misused inappropriately, beat your chest about how effectively you smack people with it, then declared some kind of weird victory.
I don't know how people score debates on Planet Anti-Evo, but that's not how mature adults discuss issues. Not honorable ones, anyway.
An honorable person would actually deal directly with the fact that I had caught them misrepsenting Ruse's comment, misstating his position, and misusing a quote out of context. They wouldn't pretend not to have read what I said and then gone off on a big goofy rant about things I haven't said while they pretended I had.
Look, if you can't bring yourself to deal with what I actually wrote, just don't respond and pretend you got busy with something else -- don't make a fool of yourself by posting desperate nonsense like what you just posted.
I had previously mistaken you for someone who honestly wanted to discuss the issue. I won't make that mistake again. I've met a few intellectually honest anti-evolutionists in the past thirty five years I've been investigating and discussing this subject, but not many, and sadly most of them are like you -- never showing the slightest embarassment when caught misrepresenting something, never admitting fault even when caught clearly red-handed, and brashly repeating the misrepresentations without shame at the next available opportunity.
I'm sure it's a lot easier to "debate" something if you don't give a fig for accuracy or honesty, and have no shame in making false accusations and pretending that you didn't see where people have identified your inaccuracies and asked you to justify your behavior. Just keep obstinately repeating the misrepresentations until everyone gets tired of the futility of it and gives up challenging you -- it's the anti-evos' favorite tactic.
I just don't understand how they can face themselves in the mirror, or ludicrously claim the high road as the bastions of truth and righteousness... No deity I can conceive of would actually approve of such behavior.
Will you be answering my question in 310 re Popper?
Gee, really? Then what are those hundreds of journal articles I read every year in the field of evolutionary biology, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast numbers which are published?
Start here for example, just one journal out of thousands: The Journal of Molecular Evolution
You guys amaze me -- you have no shame when you tell such enormous, transparently false whoppers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so creepy, and if you weren't trying like hell to get this know-nothing nonsense taught to schoolchildren.
Gee, really? Then what are those hundreds of journal articles I read every year in the field of evolutionary biology, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast numbers which are published? [excerpt]Well, if they are using a naturalistic methodology, then the resulting discoveries are nothing more than proposed conventions.
You guys amaze me -- you have no shame when you tell such enormous, transparently false whoppers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so creepy, and if you weren't trying like hell to get this know-nothing nonsense taught to schoolchildren. [excerpt]So, are you going to answer my question about Popper?
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.