I had a feeling Collin and cate might have some disagreements about what atheism should look like, it has been pretty clear that Collin is a bit more...shall we say..'fundamentalist' in his atheism than Cate. By the way thats not a criticism Collin, on the contrary, you have thought through the implications of the theory and consistently applied them to you life and I respect you for that. I think Collin has percieved and embraced the central philosophy of Evolution: naturalism/materialism, which is both the foundation and the life-orientating implication of the theory, whilst Cate has not. This is why Collin, despite the strength of his feelings of love toward his good lady, KNOWS that 'love' does not exist, it is just a particular sequence of neurons firing and a particular type of hormones being released in his brain. Whilst Cate has not yet reached this stage, I suggest that if she fully embraces neo-Darwinism, she will end up in the same condition. Not that that's necesarily a bad thing of course, if Darwinism is the truth it is quite an achievment, but what if Darwin was wrong?
You are trying, very hard it seems, to link Hitler with evolution. You will fail, however, because the link is not there. It exists only in your mind.
And you are doing it again, despite the hard evidence. "Darwinian Eugenics" does not exist, it is also a figment of your imagination, probably introduced by the creationist smear campaign. Darwin did not propose eugenics, nor did he support it.
We've already established that eugenics and evolution are two entirely different things.
Now Collin, this is stretching credulity a bit far. Yes I know that Darwin did not propose Eugenics, as I have said, it was his cousin Francis Galton. However, Galton's work was a straightforward application of Darwin's theory to humankind. Darwin did not say all that much about Eugenics (probably didn't want to step on his cousins toes) but he certainly didn't oppose it. In fact he made quite a few comments that endorse Galton's work. for example in Descent of Man, Darwin said:
'Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ... But some remarks on the action of Natural Selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr W.R.Greg, and previously by Mr Wallace and Mr Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9;
If this is not agreement with Galton's eugenics I dont know what is.
I don't plan to watch it [expelled movie] I've read that entire [anti-expelled]website. They have posted direct claims from the movie and disproved them. The site shows how the maker of this movie leaves out certain information, distorts certain facts, twists everything he can into an argument against evolution or for creationism. A simple read of the website will shows they are not "debating" the issues, they are disproving claims and correcting lies or simply providing entire sources of which only the parts which the maker deemed convenient were used. I am not interested in a propaganda movie that shows no respect for the truth. I really hope you'll read the entire site as well. I think you will agree with the site instead of the movie. If not, then you are willing disregarding a lot of information and facts.
I said I will try and get a copy of Darwin on Trial. I agree that both sides should be read. I will of course also read the criticisms. And I will also look into The Design Inference by Dembski, if I can find it.
I'm glad you are brave enough to read those books, both are readily available. Have you read any ID texts before?
I have also read most of that anti-expelled website and I want to point out that the 'direct claims' posted on the website are not actually quotes from the film and i'm pretty sure that they are not accurate. for example Ben stein is a Jew, and all Jews are well aware that antisemitism existed long before darwinism. I seriously doubt that the film makes this claim, I expect that in reality, the film just shows the part that Darwinism played in Nazi ideology. As for smear-campaign against darwinists....WHAT??? I have read a lot of stuff by ID scientists and they are always respectful towards their darwinian rivals, many darwinists, on the other hand have been extremely aggressive in their campaign against ID. Because the first round of pro ID papers got published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Darwinists embarked on a widespread campaign that involved intimidating publishers into rejecting ID papers. The thinking was that if sucessful, darwinists could then claim that ID is not science because it does not get published in peer reviewed journals. Brilliant piece of circular reasoning: ID should not get published because it is not science - ID is not science because it does not get published. this film (expelled) documents this smear campaign against ID, I think that you should at least give it a chance to speak for itself. Have you seen the trailer? Here it is again:
Tim, instead of quoting all these scientific facts about how freshwater fish could have survived the great flood why not just say....God performed a miracle and kept them all alive. Its much easier.
Well, God could have just beamed Noah and all his furry friends up into heaven, then it would be 100% faith for us. However he chose to do it in a way that we can test with our reason. he gave us the dimensions of the ark etc. we can check to see if it stands to reason. It does!
Well, God could have just beamed Noah and all his furry friends up into heaven, then it would be 100% faith for us. However he chose to do it in a way that we can test with our reason. he gave us the dimensions of the ark etc. we can check to see if it stands to reason. It does!
well it doesnt stand to reason cos its got more holes in it than a fishing net hence most people think it's a made up fairy tale.
I had a feeling Collin and cate might have some disagreements about what atheism should look like, it has been pretty clear that Collin is a bit more...shall we say..'fundamentalist' in his atheism than Cate. By the way thats not a criticism Collin, on the contrary, you have thought through the implications of the theory and consistently applied them to you life and I respect you for that. I think Collin has percieved and embraced the central philosophy of Evolution: naturalism/materialism, which is both the foundation and the life-orientating implication of the theory, whilst Cate has not. This is why Collin, despite the strength of his feelings of love toward his good lady, KNOWS that 'love' does not exist, it is just a particular sequence of neurons firing and a particular type of hormones being released in his brain. Whilst Cate has not yet reached this stage, I suggest that if she fully embraces neo-Darwinism, she will end up in the same condition. Not that that's necesarily a bad thing of course, if Darwinism is the truth it is quite an achievment, but what if Darwin was wrong?
how much more atheistic could i be than saying that i dont believe God exists?
there is no room in my thinking for him to exist. i will never be convinced otherwise. for me there are no degrees of atheism. either you believe God exists or you do not. if you want to sit on the fence and be agnostic well i just see that as a cop out. though for sure it seems i have less faith in science than collin has. ranting about darwinism and neo darwinism does not make one more atheistic. it just makes one more science orientated. as i have stated before, as i can not have any faith whatsoever in the existence or possible existence of God, nor do i have a blind faith in science.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well it doesnt stand to reason cos its got more holes in it than a fishing net hence most people think it's a made up fairy tale.
The reason most people think it is a fairy tale is cos there only knowledge of it comes from the pictures of a little wooden boat so small that the giraffes have to stick their necks out of the windows. You'd better show me the holes so I can plug them up, dont wanna sink.
The reason most people think it is a fairy tale is cos there only knowledge of it comes from the pictures of a little wooden boat so small that the giraffes have to stick their necks out of the windows. You'd better show me the holes so I can plug them up, dont wanna sink.
the reason i think its just a nice story is how unfathomable it is. i am fully aware of how long a cubit is. and the measurements in my bible for the ark make it a ridiculous concept to house 7 of every clean and 2 of every unclean animal on earth. the size of the ark also adds credence to my theory that the great flood was a localised flood.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The reason most people think it is a fairy tale is cos there only knowledge of it comes from the pictures of a little wooden boat so small that the giraffes have to stick their necks out of the windows. You'd better show me the holes so I can plug them up, dont wanna sink.
Hi Tim, okay here goes, plug some holes for me about Noah's Ark, and if you could explain in the simplest terms you can because my vocabs not as good as yours (i am from Yorkshire, England after all).
So to sum up, around 2500 BC, God wanted to flood the earth and all living things on it apart from Noah and his family (8 people in all) and so God told him to build an Ark and save 2 of each animal. From what i understand, all the animals came to the ark, noah and his family didnt go to the four corners of the world and collect them. right?
Well, HOLE #1 - Collecting The Animals. Most animals that live where they do in the world live there because thats where their food grows and cant move beyond the range of their food source because they've got nothing to eat. How do they travel from far off places (assuming they can walk that far) what do they eat on the way? Also, the climate alone will stop animals that live in one part of the world travelling and living in another part of the world, penguins for example are not going to travel through the desert to get to the middle east. What about all the predators on the way as these animals are walking thousands and thousands of miles to get to the ark? So my question to you is how did all the animals get to the ark from around the world.
HOLE #2 The Size of the ark. There are thousands and thousands of species of animal in the world and noah had to take 2 of every species. Thats alot of animals isn't it to fill the ark, which will take up alot of room. Then we've got the dinosaurs, which are huuuuuuuuuge. Have you seen the size of a brontosaurus and a TRex (2 of them)?
HOLE #3 Food. Noah was floating about on the ocean for about a year, so noah had to take enough food on board for a year for his family and the 10's of thousands of animals that were on the ark. Thats a hell of a lot of food innit. Every animal needs a special diet. Insects live on particular kinds of plant, Koala bears live on eucalyptus leaves etc. So Noah aswell as gathering every different species of animal in the world, had to gather every different plant in the world. How did he grow all these plants in the ark (which had just a single window for the sunlight to get in). Some animals can only eat live food, spiders, insects, snakes etc. How did Noah keep all the food fresh?
HOLE #4 Caring For the Animals. 8 people in all I believe. How did Noah and his family care for all the animals. Imagine thousands and thousands of animals every day crapping and peeing in the ark, all the waste they create, then they have to feed them all and exercise them. If they dont exercise, their muscles start wasting away. Did he put a big collar on the Tyrannosaurus Rex and run him up and down the boat? Could 8 people do all this? hmmmmmm
Okay, theres my first holes for you to fill, hope you can give me some answers.
Hi Tim, okay here goes, plug some holes for me about Noah's Ark, and if you could explain in the simplest terms you can because my vocabs not as good as yours (i am from Yorkshire, England after all).
So to sum up, around 2500 BC, God wanted to flood the earth and all living things on it apart from Noah and his family (8 people in all) and so God told him to build an Ark and save 2 of each animal. From what i understand, all the animals came to the ark, noah and his family didnt go to the four corners of the world and collect them. right?
Well, HOLE #1 - Collecting The Animals. Most animals that live where they do in the world live there because thats where their food grows and cant move beyond the range of their food source because they've got nothing to eat. How do they travel from far off places (assuming they can walk that far) what do they eat on the way? Also, the climate alone will stop animals that live in one part of the world travelling and living in another part of the world, penguins for example are not going to travel through the desert to get to the middle east. What about all the predators on the way as these animals are walking thousands and thousands of miles to get to the ark? So my question to you is how did all the animals get to the ark from around the world.
HOLE #2 The Size of the ark. There are thousands and thousands of species of animal in the world and noah had to take 2 of every species. Thats alot of animals isn't it to fill the ark, which will take up alot of room. Then we've got the dinosaurs, which are huuuuuuuuuge. Have you seen the size of a brontosaurus and a TRex (2 of them)?
HOLE #3 Food. Noah was floating about on the ocean for about a year, so noah had to take enough food on board for a year for his family and the 10's of thousands of animals that were on the ark. Thats a hell of a lot of food innit. Every animal needs a special diet. Insects live on particular kinds of plant, Koala bears live on eucalyptus leaves etc. So Noah aswell as gathering every different species of animal in the world, had to gather every different plant in the world. How did he grow all these plants in the ark (which had just a single window for the sunlight to get in). Some animals can only eat live food, spiders, insects, snakes etc. How did Noah keep all the food fresh?
HOLE #4 Caring For the Animals. 8 people in all I believe. How did Noah and his family care for all the animals. Imagine thousands and thousands of animals every day crapping and peeing in the ark, all the waste they create, then they have to feed them all and exercise them. If they dont exercise, their muscles start wasting away. Did he put a big collar on the Tyrannosaurus Rex and run him up and down the boat? Could 8 people do all this? hmmmmmm
Okay, theres my first holes for you to fill, hope you can give me some answers.
oh graz, youre forgetting it was all such a miracle. God was on the case.
why a year? how long does it take to drown all the sinners?
dinosaurs are prehistoric so theyre not gonna be there anyway, right?
according to genesis 7:2, it was more than just 2 of every animal. some there were 7 of.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh graz, youre forgetting it was all such a miracle. God was on the case.
and why a year? how long does it take to drown all the sinners?
dinosaurs are prehistoric so theyre not gonna be there anyway, right?
it was more than just 2 of every animal. some there were 7 of.
No, dinosaurs were on the ark i'm afraid. The great flood which apparently can be seen in fossil evidence showed remains of dinosaurs so apart from the lucky few who got a trip on the ark all the rest of the dino family were drowned when the flood happened....2500 BC by the way (cough!)
I didn't know some were 7, phew...this arks getting bigger and bigger.
and it was a year because thats how long it took the water to subside....apparently
No, dinosaurs were on the ark i'm afraid. The great flood which apparently can be seen in fossil evidence showed remains of dinosaurs so apart from the lucky few who got a trip on the ark all the rest of the dino family were drowned when the flood happened....2500 BC by the way (cough!)
I didn't know some were 7, phew...this arks getting bigger and bigger.
and it was a year because thats how long it took the water to subside....apparently
nope. and the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days - genesis 7:24.
and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated - genesis 8:3
yes according to the bible. there was only 2 of the unclean animals. my question is why bother taking them at all? if theyre so unclean why would God want his science project tainted by such degeneracy? anyhoo about those dinosaurs...
but i do see tims point about peoples perceptions of the ark coming only from paintings and the like. in one of my bibles(yes i have more than one), the acccompanying painting(which is apparently hanging in the met) depicting the ark has two unicorns in it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nope. and the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days - genesis 7:24.
and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated - genesis 8:3
yes according to the bible. there was only 2 of the unclean animals. my question is why bother taking them at all? if theyre so unclean why would God want his science project tainted by such degeneracy? anyhoo about those dinosaurs...
but i do see tims point about peoples perceptions of the ark coming only from paintings and the like. in one of my bibles(yes i have more than one), the acccompanying painting(which is apparently hanging in the met) depicting the ark has two unicorns in it.
right, i stand corrected on the year on the water, although Tim will put us both right.
I think dinosaurs are very clean animals, so are we talking 7 brontosaurus's now then. I feel sorry for the family who has to clear up the dung every day.
Unicorns, o yes forgot about them, and dont forget the 200 foot Cyclops from Jason and the Argonauts.
right, i stand corrected on the year on the water, although Tim will put us both right.
I think dinosaurs are very clean animals, so are we talking 7 brontosaurus's now then. I feel sorry for the family who has to clear up the dung every day.
Unicorns, o yes forgot about them, and dont forget the 200 foot Cyclops from Jason and the Argonauts.
cyclops graz?? now youre just being silly.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If only people were more at peace with their own soul (or spirituality or whatever you may call it), they wouldn't be so much concerned about others.
I've discovered that keeping my opinions to myself on this thread is the best thing to do. With that said, (and not adding anything to this comment) I feel the same as you!
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Gandhi
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
damn, ive made a mistake in my original post. It wasnt 10's of thousands of species on the ark, it was millions. I've just read that there are 350,000 species of beetle alone. Or maybe Noah took 1 beetle and when it left the ark it evolved into 350,000 species...too many questions. Tim where are you?
damn, ive made a mistake in my original post. It wasnt 10's of thousands of species on the ark, it was millions. I've just read that there are 350,000 species of beetle alone. Or maybe Noah took 1 beetle and when it left the ark it evolved into 350,000 species...too many questions. Tim where are you?
drowning in the flood?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hi I didn't really read what the other people wrote. Your message really spoke to me. I, too, have seen God in Ed's/PJ's music up until Binaural. In a very personal way, like you have. I, too, thought that Riot Act was a sell out, or just plain lame (can I say that?). But you really suprised me with the Jesus thing... I always looked at it as broader thing... I'm more in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism.... so the PJ philosophy just seemed more like an embracing of Nature and Life as it Is... For Real... and that's not very Chrisitian. Although, Jesus was cooler than all that dogma, that's for sure. I say, pick up Jeff's side project Three Fish... they may not share Ed's ideals completely, but they share a love of South Asian music and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (who of course Ed worked with). I've followed the Rumi/Sufi mystic thing Jeff writes about, and honestly, that's what got me believing in God (or Something) again.
All the best,
Hillary
RejectSF (hill)
I'm like an opening band for the sun."
I had a feeling Collin and cate might have some disagreements about what atheism should look like, it has been pretty clear that Collin is a bit more...shall we say..'fundamentalist' in his atheism than Cate. By the way thats not a criticism Collin, on the contrary, you have thought through the implications of the theory and consistently applied them to you life and I respect you for that. I think Collin has percieved and embraced the central philosophy of Evolution: naturalism/materialism, which is both the foundation and the life-orientating implication of the theory, whilst Cate has not. This is why Collin, despite the strength of his feelings of love toward his good lady, KNOWS that 'love' does not exist, it is just a particular sequence of neurons firing and a particular type of hormones being released in his brain. Whilst Cate has not yet reached this stage, I suggest that if she fully embraces neo-Darwinism, she will end up in the same condition. Not that that's necesarily a bad thing of course, if Darwinism is the truth it is quite an achievment, but what if Darwin was wrong?
Love does exist. I feel it everyday, I felt it yesterday night, I felt it this morning etc. I know know it's caused by something. Like I know beautiful music exists, but I know it consists out of the sounds of separate instruments. Instruments that are made of pieces of wood, brass... Played by people, whose brain activity allows them to feel such sensations and feelings and passion.
Even if Darwin is wrong, I'd like to see you try and present some proof that physiological activity doesn't create our thoughts, emotions, even our selfawareness.
I'm in full agreement with Cate on atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. She doesn't believe in god and neither do I. There's nothing more to it. Atheism doesn't tell people how to live, it doesn't tell people to put all their faith in science. It doesn't do anything. Someone can disregard all science, say it's all bullshit and not believe in god, that person would be an atheist too.
Now Collin, this is stretching credulity a bit far. Yes I know that Darwin did not propose Eugenics, as I have said, it was his cousin Francis Galton. However, Galton's work was a straightforward application of Darwin's theory to humankind. Darwin did not say all that much about Eugenics (probably didn't want to step on his cousins toes) but he certainly didn't oppose it. In fact he made quite a few comments that endorse Galton's work. for example in Descent of Man, Darwin said:
'Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ... But some remarks on the action of Natural Selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr W.R.Greg, and previously by Mr Wallace and Mr Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9;
If this is not agreement with Galton's eugenics I dont know what is.
You did read that site, right?
But Stein does not quote the very next passage in the Descent of Man which makes clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. Rather, he remarked, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
I'm glad you are brave enough to read those books, both are readily available. Have you read any ID texts before?
I have also read most of that anti-expelled website and I want to point out that the 'direct claims' posted on the website are not actually quotes from the film and i'm pretty sure that they are not accurate. for example Ben stein is a Jew, and all Jews are well aware that antisemitism existed long before darwinism. I seriously doubt that the film makes this claim, I expect that in reality, the film just shows the part that Darwinism played in Nazi ideology.
It may show that, but it's wrong.
What you and this Ben Stein are referring to is social Darwinism. I know it's confusing because it has Darwin's name. Social Darwinism is not the same as Darwinism or the theory of evolution at all. As I said before and you can look it up if you want to, social Darwinism is a different theory that applied some of the reason of evolution to society, it was also based on several other authors.
Just to make this a little more clear for you: if I create a religion, a theory, a philosophy whatever based on the bible, the quran, the hindu scriptures ... and decide to call it social Christianity, would you say it's christianity and christians support it etc. My guess is no. It's pretty simple.
Michael Shermer: "Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of nonscientific agendas."
As for smear-campaign against darwinists....WHAT???
Just re-read what you posted. A half quote used to link Darwinism to eugenics and by doing so linking it to the Holocaust.
It's disgusting. It's a smear campaign.
I have read a lot of stuff by ID scientists and they are always respectful towards their darwinian rivals, many darwinists, on the other hand have been extremely aggressive in their campaign against ID.
And vice versa.
Because the first round of pro ID papers got published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Darwinists embarked on a widespread campaign that involved intimidating publishers into rejecting ID papers. The thinking was that if sucessful, darwinists could then claim that ID is not science because it does not get published in peer reviewed journals. Brilliant piece of circular reasoning: ID should not get published because it is not science - ID is not science because it does not get published. this film (expelled) documents this smear campaign against ID, I think that you should at least give it a chance to speak for itself. Have you seen the trailer? Here it is again:
I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.
Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.
If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.
On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.
What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.
It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.
I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.
Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.
If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.
On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.
What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.
It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.
I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.
Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.
If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.
On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.
What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.
It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.
I hope you're not insinuating that publication bias doesn't occur. Publication bias does occur in the scientific community...
On 4 August 2004, a review article by Stephen Meyer, an ID proponent, appeared in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, questioning conventional evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian Explosion and proposing ID as an alternative[12] The review questions whether whether conventional biological theory can explain the information explosion evident during the Cambrian period. He says: "For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. " He argues that the first leaves too much to luck and chance to be plausible, and the second has the problem that changes to existing genes are almost invariably deleterious. However this neglects many conventional accounts of how genes evolve, including probably the major known mechanism whereby novel genes arise, via gene duplication. Gene duplication is very common through evolution, and means that one copy of a gene can continue to sustain its normal function while the other is "surplus", and is free to accumulate mutations. Thus, by conventional explanations, a new gene doesn't have to be built from nothing - instead evolution is handed an already functional "toy" to play with.
Later, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington retracted the article. The managing editor for the journal at the time, the process structuralist Richard Sternberg, stated that the article had been properly peer reviewed by three well qualified referees. His decision to publish the paper nevertheless resulted in protests, and colleagues at the Smithsonian Institute, where he was employed, sought to discredit him and created what the The U.S. Office of Special Council (which is authorized to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices and activities prohibited by civil service law) called "a hostile working environment".[13][14] http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
also Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure partly due issues re: views on ID.
The bias is there...no one knows to what extent except for those who try to publish in the big name journals, but it seems they have decided to create their own journals (which are peer reviewed) to publish their work, so perhaps we'll never know how much (great or small) bias there is/was.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Hi Tim, okay here goes, plug some holes for me about Noah's Ark, and if you could explain in the simplest terms you can because my vocabs not as good as yours (i am from Yorkshire, England after all).
So to sum up, around 2500 BC, God wanted to flood the earth and all living things on it apart from Noah and his family (8 people in all) and so God told him to build an Ark and save 2 of each animal. From what i understand, all the animals came to the ark, noah and his family didnt go to the four corners of the world and collect them. right?
Well, HOLE #1 - Collecting The Animals. Most animals that live where they do in the world live there because thats where their food grows and cant move beyond the range of their food source because they've got nothing to eat. How do they travel from far off places (assuming they can walk that far) what do they eat on the way? Also, the climate alone will stop animals that live in one part of the world travelling and living in another part of the world, penguins for example are not going to travel through the desert to get to the middle east. What about all the predators on the way as these animals are walking thousands and thousands of miles to get to the ark? So my question to you is how did all the animals get to the ark from around the world.
HOLE #2 The Size of the ark. There are thousands and thousands of species of animal in the world and noah had to take 2 of every species. Thats alot of animals isn't it to fill the ark, which will take up alot of room. Then we've got the dinosaurs, which are huuuuuuuuuge. Have you seen the size of a brontosaurus and a TRex (2 of them)?
HOLE #3 Food. Noah was floating about on the ocean for about a year, so noah had to take enough food on board for a year for his family and the 10's of thousands of animals that were on the ark. Thats a hell of a lot of food innit. Every animal needs a special diet. Insects live on particular kinds of plant, Koala bears live on eucalyptus leaves etc. So Noah aswell as gathering every different species of animal in the world, had to gather every different plant in the world. How did he grow all these plants in the ark (which had just a single window for the sunlight to get in). Some animals can only eat live food, spiders, insects, snakes etc. How did Noah keep all the food fresh?
HOLE #4 Caring For the Animals. 8 people in all I believe. How did Noah and his family care for all the animals. Imagine thousands and thousands of animals every day crapping and peeing in the ark, all the waste they create, then they have to feed them all and exercise them. If they dont exercise, their muscles start wasting away. Did he put a big collar on the Tyrannosaurus Rex and run him up and down the boat? Could 8 people do all this? hmmmmmm
Okay, theres my first holes for you to fill, hope you can give me some answers.
Sorry. been a bit busy. I am not drowning in the flood quite yet Cate, I also have a life outside this thread which involves looking after 2 kids and a pregnant (and temporarily wheelchair bound) wife.
Glad to see that you are now asking the right questions grazman, those may look like holes in my ark but they are just portals from which to fire my cannons at your good ship ‘the beagle’ (Darwin’s ship).
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly. However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship. You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere. Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’. Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation. Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Yes grazman I have seen the size of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. but these fossil examples are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects suvived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some of your questions:
But Stein does not quote the very next passage in the Descent of Man which makes clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. Rather, he remarked, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
:rolleyes:
Yeah, he did say this but it is hardly a outright rejection of Eugenics. The phrase 'if so urged by hard reason' shows that evolutionary reason DOES lead us down the eugenics path. Darwin correctly notes that this would deteriorate the 'noblest part of our nature'... i agree.
I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.
Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.
If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.
On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.
What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.
It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.
Hi Collin.
Look, the whole thing about whether Dawrin advocated Eugenics is debatable, we can disagree on it and we can both find Darwin quotes that appear to support our case. However this is only a minor part of the film 'expelled', which is mainly about the anti ID campaign. Lets be clear, ID is the underdog, a tiny minority pitted against the Darwinian establishment. Other controversial scientific findings do not claim discrimintion as you rightly say, but ID is a critique of the central belief of Darwinism - naturalism/materialism, which is why it pisses a lot of people off and gets a lot of people very scared. The accusation is that the first round of papers were published in the peer-reviewed literature but then the Darwinian establishment launched a campaign of intimidation to stop further publications so that they could employ the claim 'ID is not science because it does not exist in peer reviewed literature' to the public. This is not a matter of opinion, it can be proven one way or the other by interviewing those publishers who first published ID papers. This is what the film 'expelled' does and if you are truly open minded, you will watch it. You said you 'want proof' , well this film offers it so if you are not wiling to watch it, it shows that you dont really 'want' it. for anyone who doesn't know what film I am talking about, here is the link again. Peace.
COLLIN: Just re-read what you posted. A half quote used to link Darwinism to eugenics and by doing so linking it to the Holocaust.
It's disgusting. It's a smear campaign.
Now come on Collin.
I have not called any contemporary Darwinists 'Eugenecists' this is simply untrue. I have plainly stated that modern most modern Darwinists reject Eugenics, but this is precisely BECAUSE of its historical effect on politics. Eugenics is the direct application of Darwinism to politics, thats why its called 'social Darwinism'. Most modern Darwinists do NOT believe that Darwinism SHOULD be applied to politics, however, many Darwinists of the past DID. Galton, Haekel, and Marie Stopes WERE Eugenecists and Eugenics WAS used by the Nazi's. Thats what I said and I stand by it. If I have been embarking on a 'smear campaign' as you say, who have I smeared?
Comments
Now Collin, this is stretching credulity a bit far. Yes I know that Darwin did not propose Eugenics, as I have said, it was his cousin Francis Galton. However, Galton's work was a straightforward application of Darwin's theory to humankind. Darwin did not say all that much about Eugenics (probably didn't want to step on his cousins toes) but he certainly didn't oppose it. In fact he made quite a few comments that endorse Galton's work. for example in Descent of Man, Darwin said:
'Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ... But some remarks on the action of Natural Selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr W.R.Greg, and previously by Mr Wallace and Mr Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9;
If this is not agreement with Galton's eugenics I dont know what is.
I'm glad you are brave enough to read those books, both are readily available. Have you read any ID texts before?
I have also read most of that anti-expelled website and I want to point out that the 'direct claims' posted on the website are not actually quotes from the film and i'm pretty sure that they are not accurate. for example Ben stein is a Jew, and all Jews are well aware that antisemitism existed long before darwinism. I seriously doubt that the film makes this claim, I expect that in reality, the film just shows the part that Darwinism played in Nazi ideology. As for smear-campaign against darwinists....WHAT??? I have read a lot of stuff by ID scientists and they are always respectful towards their darwinian rivals, many darwinists, on the other hand have been extremely aggressive in their campaign against ID. Because the first round of pro ID papers got published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Darwinists embarked on a widespread campaign that involved intimidating publishers into rejecting ID papers. The thinking was that if sucessful, darwinists could then claim that ID is not science because it does not get published in peer reviewed journals. Brilliant piece of circular reasoning: ID should not get published because it is not science - ID is not science because it does not get published. this film (expelled) documents this smear campaign against ID, I think that you should at least give it a chance to speak for itself. Have you seen the trailer? Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
Well, God could have just beamed Noah and all his furry friends up into heaven, then it would be 100% faith for us. However he chose to do it in a way that we can test with our reason. he gave us the dimensions of the ark etc. we can check to see if it stands to reason. It does!
well it doesnt stand to reason cos its got more holes in it than a fishing net hence most people think it's a made up fairy tale.
how much more atheistic could i be than saying that i dont believe God exists?
there is no room in my thinking for him to exist. i will never be convinced otherwise. for me there are no degrees of atheism. either you believe God exists or you do not. if you want to sit on the fence and be agnostic well i just see that as a cop out. though for sure it seems i have less faith in science than collin has. ranting about darwinism and neo darwinism does not make one more atheistic. it just makes one more science orientated. as i have stated before, as i can not have any faith whatsoever in the existence or possible existence of God, nor do i have a blind faith in science.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The reason most people think it is a fairy tale is cos there only knowledge of it comes from the pictures of a little wooden boat so small that the giraffes have to stick their necks out of the windows. You'd better show me the holes so I can plug them up, dont wanna sink.
the reason i think its just a nice story is how unfathomable it is. i am fully aware of how long a cubit is. and the measurements in my bible for the ark make it a ridiculous concept to house 7 of every clean and 2 of every unclean animal on earth. the size of the ark also adds credence to my theory that the great flood was a localised flood.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hi Tim, okay here goes, plug some holes for me about Noah's Ark, and if you could explain in the simplest terms you can because my vocabs not as good as yours (i am from Yorkshire, England after all).
So to sum up, around 2500 BC, God wanted to flood the earth and all living things on it apart from Noah and his family (8 people in all) and so God told him to build an Ark and save 2 of each animal. From what i understand, all the animals came to the ark, noah and his family didnt go to the four corners of the world and collect them. right?
Well, HOLE #1 - Collecting The Animals. Most animals that live where they do in the world live there because thats where their food grows and cant move beyond the range of their food source because they've got nothing to eat. How do they travel from far off places (assuming they can walk that far) what do they eat on the way? Also, the climate alone will stop animals that live in one part of the world travelling and living in another part of the world, penguins for example are not going to travel through the desert to get to the middle east. What about all the predators on the way as these animals are walking thousands and thousands of miles to get to the ark? So my question to you is how did all the animals get to the ark from around the world.
HOLE #2 The Size of the ark. There are thousands and thousands of species of animal in the world and noah had to take 2 of every species. Thats alot of animals isn't it to fill the ark, which will take up alot of room. Then we've got the dinosaurs, which are huuuuuuuuuge. Have you seen the size of a brontosaurus and a TRex (2 of them)?
HOLE #3 Food. Noah was floating about on the ocean for about a year, so noah had to take enough food on board for a year for his family and the 10's of thousands of animals that were on the ark. Thats a hell of a lot of food innit. Every animal needs a special diet. Insects live on particular kinds of plant, Koala bears live on eucalyptus leaves etc. So Noah aswell as gathering every different species of animal in the world, had to gather every different plant in the world. How did he grow all these plants in the ark (which had just a single window for the sunlight to get in). Some animals can only eat live food, spiders, insects, snakes etc. How did Noah keep all the food fresh?
HOLE #4 Caring For the Animals. 8 people in all I believe. How did Noah and his family care for all the animals. Imagine thousands and thousands of animals every day crapping and peeing in the ark, all the waste they create, then they have to feed them all and exercise them. If they dont exercise, their muscles start wasting away. Did he put a big collar on the Tyrannosaurus Rex and run him up and down the boat? Could 8 people do all this? hmmmmmm
Okay, theres my first holes for you to fill, hope you can give me some answers.
oh graz, youre forgetting it was all such a miracle. God was on the case.
why a year? how long does it take to drown all the sinners?
dinosaurs are prehistoric so theyre not gonna be there anyway, right?
according to genesis 7:2, it was more than just 2 of every animal. some there were 7 of.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No, dinosaurs were on the ark i'm afraid. The great flood which apparently can be seen in fossil evidence showed remains of dinosaurs so apart from the lucky few who got a trip on the ark all the rest of the dino family were drowned when the flood happened....2500 BC by the way (cough!)
I didn't know some were 7, phew...this arks getting bigger and bigger.
and it was a year because thats how long it took the water to subside....apparently
nope. and the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days - genesis 7:24.
and the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated - genesis 8:3
yes according to the bible. there was only 2 of the unclean animals. my question is why bother taking them at all? if theyre so unclean why would God want his science project tainted by such degeneracy? anyhoo about those dinosaurs...
but i do see tims point about peoples perceptions of the ark coming only from paintings and the like. in one of my bibles(yes i have more than one), the acccompanying painting(which is apparently hanging in the met) depicting the ark has two unicorns in it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
right, i stand corrected on the year on the water, although Tim will put us both right.
I think dinosaurs are very clean animals, so are we talking 7 brontosaurus's now then. I feel sorry for the family who has to clear up the dung every day.
Unicorns, o yes forgot about them, and dont forget the 200 foot Cyclops from Jason and the Argonauts.
cyclops graz?? now youre just being silly.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I've discovered that keeping my opinions to myself on this thread is the best thing to do. With that said, (and not adding anything to this comment) I feel the same as you!
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
drowning in the flood?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
All the best,
Hillary
I'm like an opening band for the sun."
Love does exist. I feel it everyday, I felt it yesterday night, I felt it this morning etc. I know know it's caused by something. Like I know beautiful music exists, but I know it consists out of the sounds of separate instruments. Instruments that are made of pieces of wood, brass... Played by people, whose brain activity allows them to feel such sensations and feelings and passion.
Even if Darwin is wrong, I'd like to see you try and present some proof that physiological activity doesn't create our thoughts, emotions, even our selfawareness.
I'm in full agreement with Cate on atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. She doesn't believe in god and neither do I. There's nothing more to it. Atheism doesn't tell people how to live, it doesn't tell people to put all their faith in science. It doesn't do anything. Someone can disregard all science, say it's all bullshit and not believe in god, that person would be an atheist too.
naděje umírá poslední
You did read that site, right?
But Stein does not quote the very next passage in the Descent of Man which makes clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. Rather, he remarked, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
:rolleyes:
naděje umírá poslední
It may show that, but it's wrong.
What you and this Ben Stein are referring to is social Darwinism. I know it's confusing because it has Darwin's name. Social Darwinism is not the same as Darwinism or the theory of evolution at all. As I said before and you can look it up if you want to, social Darwinism is a different theory that applied some of the reason of evolution to society, it was also based on several other authors.
Just to make this a little more clear for you: if I create a religion, a theory, a philosophy whatever based on the bible, the quran, the hindu scriptures ... and decide to call it social Christianity, would you say it's christianity and christians support it etc. My guess is no. It's pretty simple.
Michael Shermer: "Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of nonscientific agendas."
Just re-read what you posted. A half quote used to link Darwinism to eugenics and by doing so linking it to the Holocaust.
It's disgusting. It's a smear campaign.
And vice versa.
I want real proof. I want proof that these scientists went to publishers and actually intimidated them. So far the 'smear campaign' against ID seems to exist soley within the mind of the creationists themselves.
Furtunately, science does not just accept ideas. There has to be substantial evidence. Intelligent design has not been able to put forth such evidence. No idea is too controversial in science, but you have to be able to support your claims with evidence. Scientists make a claim, present the evidence and other scientists challenge the evidence and reasoning. This is exactly what happened with ID, they presented their case and their evidence, other scientists challenged it. The evidence still points towards evolution, and you should know that the mechanisms, the chemistry... that led to life are widely discussed among evolutionary scientists.
If ID can make a strong case and respects the scientific method, it will be heard and challenged. Right now, it seems they are whining about 'discrimination', which is what I call a smear campaign. They are making it seem as if there's this big conspiracy or plot against ID.
On the website I gave there are plenty of names of scientists whose ideas were met with great scepticism and criticism. However, they did not cry 'discrimination' they continued their research, eventually they made such a strong case that scientists could only agree, because they proof was there even though these new ideas went against Darwinian evolution. ID has not offered sufficient evidence at all.
What they have offered, though is a series of 'documentaries' based on insufficient evidence, filled with misinformation; see your own Darwin quote. Documentaries that create they illusion ID is under attack, without evidence.
It cannot be trusted. I will watch the trailer. I won't watch the movie. That Darwin quote you posted is also featured in the movie, also without its context. That tells me his deliberately left out information to mislead and distort reality. And it seems his fabrications and fantasies are quite popular.
naděje umírá poslední
naděje umírá poslední
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough, I'm fine now.
Push me pull me. See ya later
<present tense inhabiter #0003 & Even Flow psycho #0036>
collin, if i may: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough, I'm fine now.
Push me pull me. See ya later
<present tense inhabiter #0003 & Even Flow psycho #0036>
I hope you're not insinuating that publication bias doesn't occur. Publication bias does occur in the scientific community...
On 4 August 2004, a review article by Stephen Meyer, an ID proponent, appeared in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, questioning conventional evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian Explosion and proposing ID as an alternative[12] The review questions whether whether conventional biological theory can explain the information explosion evident during the Cambrian period. He says: "For neo-Darwinism, new functional genes either arise from non-coding sections in the genome or from preexisting genes. " He argues that the first leaves too much to luck and chance to be plausible, and the second has the problem that changes to existing genes are almost invariably deleterious. However this neglects many conventional accounts of how genes evolve, including probably the major known mechanism whereby novel genes arise, via gene duplication. Gene duplication is very common through evolution, and means that one copy of a gene can continue to sustain its normal function while the other is "surplus", and is free to accumulate mutations. Thus, by conventional explanations, a new gene doesn't have to be built from nothing - instead evolution is handed an already functional "toy" to play with.
Later, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington retracted the article. The managing editor for the journal at the time, the process structuralist Richard Sternberg, stated that the article had been properly peer reviewed by three well qualified referees. His decision to publish the paper nevertheless resulted in protests, and colleagues at the Smithsonian Institute, where he was employed, sought to discredit him and created what the The U.S. Office of Special Council (which is authorized to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices and activities prohibited by civil service law) called "a hostile working environment".[13][14] http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
http://medjournalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/lot-of-bias-and-possibly-some-reality.html
also Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure partly due issues re: views on ID.
The bias is there...no one knows to what extent except for those who try to publish in the big name journals, but it seems they have decided to create their own journals (which are peer reviewed) to publish their work, so perhaps we'll never know how much (great or small) bias there is/was.
Sorry. been a bit busy. I am not drowning in the flood quite yet Cate, I also have a life outside this thread which involves looking after 2 kids and a pregnant (and temporarily wheelchair bound) wife.
Glad to see that you are now asking the right questions grazman, those may look like holes in my ark but they are just portals from which to fire my cannons at your good ship ‘the beagle’ (Darwin’s ship).
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly. However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship. You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere. Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’. Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation. Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Yes grazman I have seen the size of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. but these fossil examples are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects suvived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some of your questions:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/
p.s Nice to meet another Englishman here grazman, i'm from wiltshire.
Yeah, he did say this but it is hardly a outright rejection of Eugenics. The phrase 'if so urged by hard reason' shows that evolutionary reason DOES lead us down the eugenics path. Darwin correctly notes that this would deteriorate the 'noblest part of our nature'... i agree.
Hi Collin.
Look, the whole thing about whether Dawrin advocated Eugenics is debatable, we can disagree on it and we can both find Darwin quotes that appear to support our case. However this is only a minor part of the film 'expelled', which is mainly about the anti ID campaign. Lets be clear, ID is the underdog, a tiny minority pitted against the Darwinian establishment. Other controversial scientific findings do not claim discrimintion as you rightly say, but ID is a critique of the central belief of Darwinism - naturalism/materialism, which is why it pisses a lot of people off and gets a lot of people very scared. The accusation is that the first round of papers were published in the peer-reviewed literature but then the Darwinian establishment launched a campaign of intimidation to stop further publications so that they could employ the claim 'ID is not science because it does not exist in peer reviewed literature' to the public. This is not a matter of opinion, it can be proven one way or the other by interviewing those publishers who first published ID papers. This is what the film 'expelled' does and if you are truly open minded, you will watch it. You said you 'want proof' , well this film offers it so if you are not wiling to watch it, it shows that you dont really 'want' it. for anyone who doesn't know what film I am talking about, here is the link again. Peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
Now come on Collin.
I have not called any contemporary Darwinists 'Eugenecists' this is simply untrue. I have plainly stated that modern most modern Darwinists reject Eugenics, but this is precisely BECAUSE of its historical effect on politics. Eugenics is the direct application of Darwinism to politics, thats why its called 'social Darwinism'. Most modern Darwinists do NOT believe that Darwinism SHOULD be applied to politics, however, many Darwinists of the past DID. Galton, Haekel, and Marie Stopes WERE Eugenecists and Eugenics WAS used by the Nazi's. Thats what I said and I stand by it. If I have been embarking on a 'smear campaign' as you say, who have I smeared?