from Stephen Jones:
>Since Darwinism depends *absolutely* on the assumption that *all*
>mutations in the entire 3.9 billion-year history of life have been random
>with respect to adaptive improvement, it is absolutely *essential* that
>Darwinists (including Christian ones), attack all Christian creationist
>notions of a Creator guiding or intervening in natural history.
Since you are so fond of quoting obsure passages from unknown scientists
writing in journals in 1963 which you claim to have read every word of (the
time you spend reading in order to find these quotes must be amazing), I'd
like for you to come up with a source for the claim you make above.
Because *I* (a biologist with credentials on par with Stephen J. Gould's
german shephard) claim that *even if* Jehovah himself created the first
self-replicating organism ex nihilo and *even if* this self-same deity
personally intervenes with every single genetic replication in every
organism on the planet over the last 3.5 billion years and personally has
willed every single error and resultant mutation, it would have *no effect*
on whether or not evolution has happened. Natural selection isn't the least
bit random.
>BTW that Susan is citing Hamrick as a "Christian" is ironic because from
>her previous utterances she thinks that Christianity is equivalent to
>belief in
>Santa Claus or the tooth fairy and that therefore all Christians (including
>presumably Hamrick) must be *massively* deluded!
Mistaken. It happens. I, myself, have been mistaken once or twice.
>Hamrick, if he sees this, might ponder that atheists like Susan seize on his
>criticisms of Dembski, not to destroy just ID, but really behind that
>*Christianity*.
you need to get a leash on your paranoia. I really couldn't possibly care
less of some people are Christians or Hindus or whatever. What I care
passionately about is whether or not your imparative to recruit gets so
strong you find it acceptable to use the force of government to compel
people to become at least lip-service Christians. And (since that's not
much of possibility in the US) I care very deeply about whether or not
portions of reality get concealed because it seems to conflict with the
dogma held my a few Christian adherents.
My bottom line is this: I don't want Christian dogma taught as science in
schools supported by public tax money and ID is the same old creationism
hidden in new clothes.
>Hamrick might also ponder why, as a Christian, he doesn't spend His Lord's
>time more profitably attacking his *atheist* fellow Darwinists like Dawkins
>and Ruse (instead of defending them), rather than attacking his Christian
>brother, Dembski.
probably because he takes that "bearing false witness" thing pretty
seriously. Deceiving and misleading people in order to save souls probably
seems pretty twisted to him.
>CH>In Dr. Dembski's
>>article, 'Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame', he quoted Michael Ruse
>>out of context to bolster the opinion of the dogmatism of Darwinists,
>
>All Demsbki said was:
>
> "I open with these general remarks about tentativeness and
> dogmatism in science because their importance is too frequently
> neglected in discussions of biological evolution. It hardly makes
> for a free and open exchange of ideas when biologist Richard
> Dawkins asserts, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet
> somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is
> ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider
> that)." Nor does philosopher Michael Ruse help matters when he
> trumpets, "Evolution is a fact, *fact*, *FACT!*" (Meta 027:
> "Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame", by William
> Dembski, 16 Mar 2000.
>
> http://listserv.omni-list.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=metaviews&D=1&O=D&F=&S=
>&P=3423)
>
>First, notice BTW that Hamrick selectively ignores what Dawkins said!
>
>Second, notice the fact, *fact*, *FACT* :-) that Ruse *did* say it:
>
> "As noted in the Preface, one often sees it said that `evolution is
> not a fact, but a theory.' Is this the essence of my claim? Not
> really! Indeed, I suggest that this wise-sounding statement is
> confused to the point of falsity: it almost certainly is if, without
> regard for cause, one means no more by `evolution' than the claim
> that all organisms developed naturally from primitive beginnings.
> Evolution is a fact, *fact*, *FACT*!" (Ruse M., "Darwinism
> Defended," 1983, p.58. Emphasis Ruse's)
>
>Even if in defense of Ruse, one points out that by "evolution" he only
>means that "all organisms developed naturally from primitive beginnings"
>without specifying the "cause", it is dogmatic, nonetheless.
Ruse probably means "decent with modification" "or a change in a gene pool
over time" rather than the non-standard creationist definition which you
have provided. When thousands of people from all over the world, from
different cultures and religions have examined the evidence for evolution
and believe it to be compelling, then I think we can safely say it is a
fact.
>And it is not
>even true. It is *not* a "fact" that "all organisms developed *naturally*
>from primitive beginnings". There is simply no way for Ruse to know that
>it was 100% "naturally" unless he makes the dogmatic assumption that
>either there is no God (materialism), or He never supernaturally intervened
>in life's history (naturalism).
The "naturally" part is your quibble. If it is supernaturally, you will
have to find some way to demonstrate that. None has been forthcoming so
far. In fact, I believe that it is a facet of Christian dogma that one
should not be hunting for such a method. The supernatural creation is
supposed to be an article of faith alone.
>CH>misrepresented the ideas of Mickey Rowe
>
>I cannot see where Dembski in his article says anything about anyone
>called "Rowe".
>
>CH>"(later writing a half apology) to
>>paint the picture of Darwinists as monsters,
>
>Again I cannot follow what Hamrick is saying. The word "monsters" does
>not even appear in Dembski's article.
I think this is his characterization and it's not that far out. Having no
real "problems" to present about evolution, when Dembski, et al. went to
congress, they were forced to talk about how a belief in evolution caused
atheism, crime, sexual promiscuity and general immorality.
>CH>and only wrote half the truth
>>about Darwin's presentation of his Theory of Natural Selection (the truth
>>is that during Darwin's time there were few if any specialized scientific
>>journals, that Newton, Kepler, and Galileo also published books for the
>>public, .
>
>Hamrick misses the point. What Dembski was saying is that from Darwin's
>time on, Darwinists have always assumed that their theory was
>understandable to the public, so they cannot blame non-acceptance of it as
>non-understanding:
> "The public need feel no shame at disbelieving and openly
> criticizing Darwinism. Most scientific theories these days are
> initially published in specialized journals or monographs, and are
> directed toward experts assumed to possess considerable technical
> background. Not so Darwin's theory.
this is, of course, a lie of the bald-faced variety. Perhaps Dembski has
never heard of these journals:
American Journal of Botany, Heredity, American Naturalist, Journal of
Mammalogy, American Zoologist, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Animal
Behavior, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, Molecular Ecology, Behavior, Molecular Biology and Evolution
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Paleobiology,
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Physiological Zoology, Canadian
Journal of Botany, Plant Systematics and Evolution, Canadian Journal of
Zoology, Proceedings of the Royal Society, series B, Biological, Sciences,
Cladistics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Copeia, Systematic Biology,
Current Anthropology, Systematic Botany, Current Opinion in Genetics,
Systematic Zoology, Evolution, Theoretical Population Biology, Evolutionary
Ecology, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Functional Ecology, Zoological
Journal of the Linnean Society, Genetics
this is by no means an exhaustive list. It's all I could find after 5
minutes with a search engine. Dembski must have been too busy doing the
Lord's work to take that same 5 minutes.
The reason the general public doesn't understand it is because creationists
have been pretty successful keeping it out of schools. Most teen-agers
graduate from high school with no idea what evolution is about and from
then on, unless they go into the natural sciences in college, they mostly
hear only creationist "it's only a theory" propaganda.
sThe locus classicus for
> Darwin's theory remains his *Origin of Species*. In it Darwin took
> his case to the public. Contemporary Darwinists likewise continue
> to take their case to the public. The books of Richard Dawkins,
> Daniel Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, E. O. Wilson, and a host of
> other biologists and philosophers aim to convince a skeptical public
> about the merits of Darwin's theory. These same authors commend
> the public when it finds their arguments convincing. But when the
> public remains unconvinced, commendation turns to condemnation.
> "Dembski, "Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame", 2000)
>
>CH> and that Darwin and Wallace copresented the Theory of Natural
>>Selection to a group of fellow scientists).
>
>Here Hamrick is simply wrong at best and deliberately misleading at
>worst. First, Wallace did not co-present his theory with Darwin "to a
>group of fellow scientists". The facts are that Wallace sent an abstract of
>his theory to Darwin for review by him and Lyell and then publication, but
>Darwin hastily wrote his own brief abstract of his theory and read it *first*
>at a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858, followed by Wallace's
>paper. Wallace was in Malaya and did not know anything about it until
>after it had happened.
I have a very good biography of Darwin at home. I'm going to check that. I
believe Hamrick is correct and they presented the paper together. I know
for sure that Wallace's name appeared on the paper and Darwin insisted on
sharing credit with him.
>CH>and his close
>>association with the Discovery Center, a think tank with a definite
>>socio-political agenda,
>
>What has this got to do with it? *Everyone* has a "socio-political
>agenda". Hamrick presumably does not discount Gould, Lewontin or
>Maynard Smith's scientific theories because their "socio-political agenda"
>is Marxism! If having a "socio-political agenda" or even being associated
>with those who have, disqualifies one's scientific theories, then there
>would be no science.
Gould is a Marxist? ROFL!!! and there's a rich Marxist think thank
financing all his efforts? An organization with a Marxist agenda like
Harvard University? The communists hated Darwin's theory and considered it
to be capitalistic. In fact extreme left wingers still do and sometimes
write creationist-like diatribes against it.
>CH>Dr. Dembski is certainly no scientist, he does not conduct scientific
>>research, and he does not write scientific articles.
>
>Again this "priestly" ad hominem misses Dembski's point that Darwinists
>have always assumed that their theory was understandable by the general
>public:
>
>If that is the case, then someone who " holds seven degrees" like Dembski
>can surely understand it and criticise it.
Oh, I think Dembski understands it. I think Johnson does too. That's why
when they blatantly mischaracterize it, I know they are intentionally
deceptive.
>
> "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims
> not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane
> (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put
> Your Money on Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,,
> "Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution", in New York
> Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
>
>I am just a layman and I have just passed with distinction my first semester
>unit which was the main origin of life and evolution unit in the entire
>Biology degree. There was nothing special or particularly hard about it. If
>the main evolution unit in a Biology degree is the first unit in First Year
>university, and expected to be understood by teenagers straight from high
>school, it is absurd to claim that someone of Demsbki's intellect and
>erudition would have any trouble understanding it!
Dawkins was struggling to not call somebody a liar. Creationists never
seem to give him credit for that. "They just don't understand evolution" is
a tad better than "they understand evolution very well and are lying their
behinds off." (Dembski either did or didn't know about those journals.)
>And Darwinists are just as hostile to Mike Behe who probably conducts
>more "scientific research" and "experiments" than all of the above put
>together! So in the end Hamrick's impugning of Dembski's alleged lack of
>scientific qualifications is just an ploy to deflect criticism from
>Darwinism. I don't say that Hamrick does this consciously. No doubt to
>him it *really* seems that way.
Dembski was either ignorant of the existence of those journals or he was
lying about their existence. Ignorance is the lesser charge here.
>CH>Dr. Dembski, despite his claims of intelligent design as a scientific
>>theory, is not conducting scientific research.
>
>See above. But in any event, Dembski's does not even *claim* to be
>"conducting scientific research", at least in an experimental sense.
>Dembski's efforts are directed towards establishing the philosophical absis
>for intelligent design as a scientific theory.
is he? he claims to have found a method for detecting design. He should be
testing that method left and right. He's not doing that? why not? What
scientist would set aside a fruitful avenue of research that had a chance
of proving his pet hypothesis in order to work out the philosophical basis
of . . . of what? He hasn't done any research yet. His hypothesis might be
disproved (after all, you claim it is falsifiable) and then all that
philosophical work would be for naught.
>Other members of the ID movement, like Mike Behe, are "conducting
>scientific research" aimed at proving evidence for ID. But Behe's evidence
>is then rejected on other grounds.
>Since the really major claims for Darwinism go far beyond any possibility
>of experimental testing, it probably wouldn't matter to convinced
>Darwinists (even Christian ones) what "scientific research" and
>"experiments" ID conducted to support their theory.
all those journals above do *something* to fill their pages. You claim that
you pore over scientific journals--even some that are more than 30 years
old--in order to find your out of context quotes. Therefore you should be
shocked and horrified that Dembsky claims that those journals don't exist
*and* you should have a nodding acquaintance with the research reported in
their pages. That is if you *don't* get those quotes out of creationist
publications.
>CH>Science is based on the principle of testable, falsifiable hypotheses.
>
>So what would falsify Darwinism? Darwin proposed Irreducible
>Complexity as a crucial test of his theory:
>
> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
> could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
> slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
> (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," 6th Edition, 1928, reprint,
> p.170)
>but modern-day Darwinists like Hamrick just reject IC it out of hand.
and you know the above quote is wildly out of context. And that the
"numerous, successive, slight modifications" need not be linear. If Dembski
is not doing any research to prove his hypothesis, there's nothing to
reject but his "philosophy."
>In other
>words, not war, but birth control is nature's answer." (Went F.W., "The
>Plants", [1963], Time/Life Books: Netherlands, *****1965,****** reprint,
>p.168)
>Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
for example!
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 24 2000 - 15:18:37 EDT