Creationism/Intelligent Design/Evolution [Archive]

Epicman

08-18-2005, 09:33 PM

Neurofizz - As you might have noted the title of my work you certainly noted that it is an attempt to join Creation with Evolution. This would entail some serious examination of the Bible. That is not material for a scientific review for a peer journal. In fact I go into great detail about some certain observations:

Here is just one: There are gross misconceptions amongst the vast majority because scientists have only been concerned with how their peers receive their work. This allows for the technical jargon to be the means of delivery leaving the media, who scan these scientific peer journals, to translate. These translations are not made by qualified people. At least not qualified to translate the language of science. They are, however, qualified to create sensationalism because that is what the public demands. This is how you end up where we are today with a web so tangled and the division so deep. My answer to all this is to create a means by which science can be translated for the general public and deny the media the opportunity to sensationalize it first.

Why do you think that people in general think that Darwin said that humans are descended from apes? Not a single allusion to that is found in Darwin's writings. Why do you think that we are debating cloning, stem cell research, and all the similar issues? It is all entirely based upon misconception exactly because science has only been concerned with peer review. The peer review can come by reading the translation provided to the general public. If science is forced to do this in an easily understandable public forum then we do away with the sensationalized translation of the media and are held accountable.

On the issue of money... Sure, just like any other author here I would like to profit from my work. I have invested a great deal of time and money gaining my credentials in higher education. I have also invested years of careful research and study into the subjects I write about. I agree with you folks on most of the points you make. My History of Science and History of Biology works will be published through a university or textbook publisher. Until I gain connections into the agent/publishing world my time-sesitive works will continue to go the pod route.
1) My contracts with them contain the ability for me to cancel by simply sending an email and they are non-exclusive.
2) I have total control over my work and its design.
3) I can send review copies to whomever I wish - which will include peer groups, the media, etc.
4) I make my investment back - just the setup fees - by selling 26 copies at retail which is, by the way, priced several dollars lower than comparable titles.
5) For every 200 author copies I buy (I'm not required to buy any) I recover my costs for those upon selling 70 copies.
6) I have direct channels from which to sell at least 400-500 copies without setting foot off my university's campus.
7) I will also be listed on all the amazons globally, all the book stores online sites, Ingram's catalog that goes to 20,000 bookstores in the US, have a CIP record for the benefit of univerities, schools, and libraries, and on and on.

I'll stop for now. But I truly do appreciate constructive criticism. One benefit is that it helps me to focus my delivery and another is that it aids in the development of an advertising campaign.

Thanks,
Epicman

Elwyn

08-19-2005, 01:43 AM

I had no idea I’d start a debate like this with my first ever post here. I am definitely getting an education.

About what EpicMan had to say: If I remember my history of the sciences correctly, it was always a major struggle to get the truth to win out over the accepted train of thought and methods in a particular time period – in whatever branch of science or medicine.

The established church put folks in prison for stating that earth was not the center of the universe. It seems history should have taught us something. If EpicMan has something that is cutting edge and goes against the flow, getting it published by the major scientific journals may be very difficult. It seems that politics shows up in everything.

EpicMan, being an amateur theologian myself, I certainly am interested in your book. I have to say that I certainly believe that this universe and everything in it could not possibly have happened by chance. The mathematical odds say that there is a superior intelligence behind it all. However, I don’t buy all of what most of the closed minded fundamentalist theologians say either. It seems that the creator can change things at his will over time. I watched a program on TV where they showed how certain moths actually changed color over a period of many years so they could blend in with the changing environment. We have so much to learn!

That’s why you may have to go the self-published route, or take the chance of never getting published. Then we’ll have to wait another 50 years before someone else gets the same theories made known.

The director of the movie Lord of the Rings exhausted all possibilities but one, a tiny unknown studio that took a chance – and ended up reaping huge benefits!

logos1234567

08-19-2005, 03:21 AM

Epicman, I see what you mean about hot topic and sincerely wish you the best with it....just one little point......

I would order more but my cost does not go down until I order 1000 at a time.

Not so, you'll find it's a sliding scale.

GOOD LUCK

Mac H.

08-19-2005, 11:04 AM

Good luck.

However, I noticed that you believe you 'combine them in a way that is acceptable to both sides to put the debate to bed'. I guarantee you will never completely do that.

Good luck if you can find a compromise that is acceptable for creationists. My father is a creationist. Unless you argue that there was a literal 6 day creation with a literal rib being taken from a literal Adam being made into a literal Eve, with a literal Noah and a literal flood (all about 5,000-15,000 years ago) then you will not present a compromise that is acceptable to him.

If you argue against a young earth, then you are basically saying that 90% of the output of creationist literature is wrong for the last 50 years. I don't know many creationists who would find that acceptable. (Yes, I do know quite a few creationists.)

You've you gotton some of the creationist magazines to review and give an opinion of your compromise? And they've found it acceptable?

Wow. The creationists in your country must be a bit different to the ones over here.

Good luck - Honestly, I wish you the best.

Mac

Epicman

08-19-2005, 11:23 AM

I did have some staunch Creationists review my ideas and the point of contention does surround the literal translation - TRANSLATION. But the Noah account and the fact that God created just one man and one woman - just as God required only one male and one female of each species in the ark to repopulate the earth. Add to that the fact that God directed each of His creations: sea animals, land creatures, and fowl to "be fruitful and multiply to fill the earth is direct evidence that there is a strong possibility that God created only a breeding pair of each species and directed THEM to multiply and fill the earth. This is just a teaser - there is much more to it than this. Read the book (shameless plug) I have had not a single Creationist be able to use scripture alone to support any other possibilities. It is always inferred translations of what people 'think' they mean. They did admit that my ideas on this were supported directly by scripture AS IT IS WRITTEN. Only those who absolutely refuse to crack my pages will maintaina firm stance. I say to them what harm is there in reading words? there conclusion is always to admit that it caused them to think. I challenged anyone to prove otherwise based solely upon scripture exactly as it is written - ive kept constant contact - even the ministers say they thus far have been unsuccessful in meeting my challenge - and some continue to search.

Best regards,
Glenn

Epicman

08-19-2005, 11:28 AM

No, not a Creationist magazine - but well over 2 dozen very devout Creationists.
Remember - I am a creationist also AND a scientist too. There is merit to both sides and it centers around misconceptions due to sensationalist translation of technical science - another teaser - read the book.

Epicman

allenparker

08-19-2005, 06:13 PM

I did have some staunch Creationists review my ideas and the point of contention does surround the literal translation - TRANSLATION.

This is something that is probably best taken outside to the Take IT Outside board. If you wish to discuss this further with me, I would be glad to help where I can.

The bible as we know it today is not necessarily the same as it was given in oral traditions thousands of years ago. Every version of the bible is a translation and most are also transcriptions of oral traditions.

None of what we have today can be given as "original." We simply do not have any original manuscripts. Even the latest books to come to us are far from original.

Sorry to clog this with an Outside argument. I do feel that the value of a commercial theological publisher is their ability to verify the text as within arguable truth.

This is not to say that I doubt the theory put forth in your book. I haven't read it yet.

Allen

logos1234567

08-19-2005, 06:39 PM

I mean, a normal Joe Blow on the street is not going to be interested in a book about creationism/intelligent design, no matter how many commercials he sees

You reckon? I would have thought many of the 'normal Joes' (or Josephines buying it for their kids) in the Bible-Belt of the mid-west would buy it. Hasn't it been a hot topic there since 1923 or something?!!!!

HapiSofi

08-20-2005, 08:30 AM

James D. Macdonald

08-20-2005, 05:53 PM

I still think God should have been able to find a way to make planetfall without tossing the kid out the airlock.

Whatever piece of gear was supposed to keep out stowaways clearly wasn't functioning. He should have unbolted it and thrown it out the airlock.

Epicman

08-21-2005, 09:35 AM

It is the average Joes on the street that are right in the middle of the controversy. Everybody has pondered where they came from and why there are different races. The book is written in terms that an average high school student can understand - so I have covered a lot of the population. What you just said proves my point: the other works on the subjecs daling with the topic are way too technical for the average Joe on the street to understand. Someone mentioned all the races being descended by a 'Mother Eve' in Africa. They were on the right track but a little off and missing a lot of details. I go into a theory of human evolution and it has nothing to do with monkeys or apes. My theories throughout the book are based upon Biblical support tests and scientific soundness with every one supports the other and is supported by the other.

Heck I dont want to give it all away. If I put the whole thing up here you guys wont buy it. (JOKE - but I hope you do) I am submitting my materials tomorrow and I have the package ready to go to the Library of Congress Monday. That means I'll have my first order around 3-4 weeks and around the end of September or the first of October it will be up on the sites available.

James I will be around sooner than a year. I will have my proof book in about 2 weeks and my order in about 3-4 weeks from tomorrow. They said that it would take about 2-3 weeks from the time I approve the book for it to be on Amazon and the others. I will hang around and keep anyone interested informed - maybe some will learn how to do and what not to do based upon my experience. If I dissapear from the boards but you guys hear about me a lot then I am on some south Pacific island tipping some cold Dr. Peppers and banging out the next book. (I wish).

Epicman

Elwyn

08-21-2005, 11:46 PM

Mac H - I think your last message was intended for Epicman.

And Epicman, for a place where you can sell your book, please visit http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/SearchResults.asp?ProdCat=ID&ProdCatName=Intelligent+Design

James D. Macdonald

08-28-2005, 11:10 PM

President Bush just weeks ago supported Intelligent Design be taught in schools and started a huge controversy.

Put not thy trust in princes.

Bush was just throwing a bone to the far right, to distract them from the revolving disaster in Iraq. It's like his proposed manned flight to Mars -- he's already forgotten about it.

NeuroFizz

08-29-2005, 05:22 PM

And what if Epicman sends one of those books to an influential someone who has his or her eyes opened to a new idea that eventually leads to Epicman being recognized for his insight on the subject.

I'm sorry, but you just lost me on this. If Epicman's theory is going to make it on a big scale, it will have to stand up to a close, professional scrutiny by religious scholars and scientific scholars alike. We're talking about academics, and I do mean close scrutiny. If the plan is to pin the hopes on an "influential someone" discovering the book, your strategy is dead wrong. That's not the way the academic community works. There are no agents to "spread the word." Seriously-considered works must stand the test of peer review (from both sides), and that peer review is not gained through newspaper advertisements and "influential someones." My bet is there are hundreds of other people all around this country who have groundbreaking theories of interdigitation on this topic. How is yours going to stand out above the rest? For a theory to be accepted, it must be subjected to actual tests of verification by experts in the field(s). Once again, and I'm sorry, but the path chosen will not gain wide acceptance until it goes the more formal route.

Epicman, sorry about your personal trials. I've been involved with this thread from the beginning, and I don't feel the comments have been anything but offers of advice on an emotional subject. Some have been blunt. But you better prepare yourself. You have chosen a book topic that has an emotional potential that will make this thread seem like a raindrop in the ocean. You had better toughen your hide before hardliners on both sides of the issue get hold of your ideas. And now I'm going to be blunt. Your primary argument throughout this thread has been "$10 per copy profit." With your personal problems, I think we can all understand your urgency. But you had better prepare yourself for what is ahead, on the intellectual side and on the emotional side. You are putting a lightning rod in a storm path. There are well established scientific and religious scholars (and philosophers) whose entire careers have been dedicated to this topic. And that has been the case for centuries. Some of the most brilliant minds in all human history have walked this road. Do you think your ideas are so unique and innovative that no one has thought about them before? And what about all of the other "new boutique theories" that are flying around? What will distinguish yours from theirs? Are you prepared to fight a battle against immeasurable odds?

I wish you success. Most of all, I wish you health and happiness. Please don't put all of your hopes on this one venture. Don't count on it being your personal savior. Treat is as frosting, not the cake. Please.

Epicman

08-30-2005, 12:29 AM

Thank you Elwyn, Neurofizz, and James.

The controversy and debate surrounding Creation, Evolution, and Intellegent Design is a very public one indeed. One of my main contentions is that Science (academics) only looks to their peers reception of their work. What this causes is for science to keep everything riddled with technical jargon that laypersons cannot understand. Who acts as translators? The media of course. And these unqualified translators for science add their sensationalistic slant to their erroneous translations and cause the debate and controversy in the first place.

How many people have seen the commercial where the Asian guy clones himself and has all these guys (clones) that are duplicates doing his work for him?
What is sad is the number of people out there who actually believe it is possible to produce same age clones and lead a charge to stop cloning now.
How many people think Adolf Hitler can be cloned and we'd have a bunch of fanatics running around screaming for Jewish blood?

How many people think that Darwin proposed man came from apes?

All the above are misconceptions that have fueled PUBLIC debate, controversy, and political action based upon misconception. The academic world - the scientists - only are concerned with their peers - not the public.

My book and the others that I am working on are formatted on the concept of a "Universal Understanding in Plain English" an idea that needs to be utilized by scientists to avoid the controversy and debate surrounding theories and ideas. There will be no mistake - even from a high school student who reads my book - as to the translation of my theories - I have translated them myself.

And to purport that my ideas have a diminished meaning only because many minds and great minds before me have pondered the same thoughts is akin to saying that human progress has come to a halt. There can be no more Einsteins, Newtons, Aristotles, Platos, Shakespears, Steven Kings, Flemings, Bells, or Fords because every great idea has been thought of, every great story has been written, every great invention invented.

Somebody needs to take a good look because if that is all true we may as well stop and wither and die - there is nothing left to accomplish. I don't think any of us would be here on this board if that were so.

As for curricular adaptation of my theories (someone mentioned it as doubtful). What would we give to have textbooks from Einstein, Fleming, Darwin, etc.? In today's world of PC publishing that is now possible - maybe it was not in the past. Many great minds were not recognized until after death.

I'm not bragging but the possibility still remains: what if? Whatever it is you other folks write - what if you were the next King, Sheldon, or Shakespeare?

Something has to motivate you to keep trying or you wouldn't be here now would you?

Go to the thread listing and see the number of viewers of this thread - is it substantial? Something interesting is going on here and I promise you that the vast majority are not scientific academics. They are people with their own specialties writing about their ideas. I can promise one thing: Every single one of them has pondered, participated in, or maybe even has an interest in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.

It is not an academic issue - it is one for the masses. The beauty of it all is that it is a Universal idea.

Every single one of the forty plus people that helped edit my book have said "Why didn't I think of that?"

And when I hand an edited manuscript with my subject matter to a 14 year old and they say "WOW" and I get the same response from a PhD then I know I have done my job.

Epicman
Glenn S. Hamilton
http://www.cometogetherbooks.com

NeuroFizz

08-30-2005, 01:18 AM

Hi, Glenn

Please note that I talk about academic review, not scientific review. Yes, this will include some scientists, but it will also include academics in religious studies, philosophy, as well as many other kinds of "deep thinkers."

As for the idea of a theory for the masses, unfortunately, the masses can't tell a theory from a hypothesis from an assumption. You may get a significant following, but your ideas won't get anywhere until you get academics on board as well. So what if scientic evaluations haven't been friendly to your type of work. If your ideas are truely revolutionary and universal, scientists, and others, will have to address them fairly, provided your ideas can hold up to some form of testing, scientific or otherwise.

It's a mistake to write off a segment of the controversy just because of a perceived treatment. When you do, you are automatically biasing your work to the other side. Besides, all theories, hypotheses, etc. are not perfect. Some good old roasting may help you strengthen yours, so you find even more common ground. Get it out there to both sides.

Good luck, and keep writing.

Aconite

08-30-2005, 01:26 AM

Go to the thread listing and see the number of viewers of this thread - is it substantial?
Not really, no. Also, note that the number of views does not equal number of viewers. A sinlge viewer who visits this thread multiple times will be counted as multiple views. So each time you yourself have viewed this thread, for example, you were counted.

Something interesting is going on here and I promise you that the vast majority are not scientific academics. They are people with their own specialties writing about their ideas. I can promise one thing: Every single one of them has pondered, participated in, or maybe even has an interest in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I doubt that. I read this thread because it's in the Bewares and Background Check forum, and I like to keep up with the forum. I do not have an interest in ID. I read it for its connection to publishing, not ID, and I doubt I'm unique in that.

James D. Macdonald

08-30-2005, 04:52 AM

I think the high number of views came during the brief flamewar that Mac split out and moved down to Take It Outside.

Be that as it may ... reality trumps everything. We'll see what the next year brings. I look forward to hearing.

Epicman

08-30-2005, 04:58 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I doubt that. I read this thread because it's in the Bewares and Background Check forum, and I like to keep up with the forum. I do not have an interest in ID. I read it for its connection to publishing, not ID, and I doubt I'm unique in that.

I stated that:

"I can promise one thing: Every single one of them has pondered, participated in, or maybe even has an interest in Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design."

Meaning that everone here, at one point or another, has at least pondered these ideas. While you may have never pondered ID I'm sure that some sort of thought or opinion exists or has existed presently or at some point in time within your mind.

As for the viewers - I understand that they count you and I and James and Elwyn and Neurofizz and Hopisopi everytime we view - The count has increased 85 views since I posted at 2 pm today -

Which of us is hopping in and out of here repeatedly to raise the count?

Epicman
Glenn S. Hamilton
http://www.cometogetherbooks.com

Mac H.

09-22-2005, 01:03 PM

I wonder where we'd be if Columbus never challenged the theory of a flat world...:Shrug:
Sigh.

Columbus did NOT challenge the theory of a flat world. The 'flat world' theory hasn't been popular since pre-Ancient Greek times.

The story that Columbus challenged the theory of a flat world is just a story that is told to little children. Just like Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny.

Didn't you learn any history at school ?

Try reading Archimedes' "The Sand Reckoner" here: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/navigation/ideas/reckoner.shtml

Mac

Epicman

09-22-2005, 10:15 PM

This is the exact reason that I wrote the book. You have someone come along, ignore the entire point:

"On Sept. 16th 38 Nobel Prize winners sent a letter to the Kansas State Board of Ed. asking that they abandon a proposal that says students should be more critical of the theory of evolution. How can a scientist suggest an abandonment of critique when critique is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry?"

and attempt to discredit someone by burying them with technical jargon. Go visit the link in the above post to see an illustration of this. Anyhow it is way off topic but I could list those who have challenged long-held beliefs utilizing the scientific method and PROGRESSED because of it. Fleming, Einstein, The Wrights, and yes - even Darwin.

So back to the point that you failed to answer Mac, Why would a 'scientist' encourage the abandonment of critical challenge to ANY theory?

Or are you going to come back with another Santa Claus story relating to Fleming, Einstein, the Wrights, or even Darwin?

Greer

09-22-2005, 10:42 PM

Except the letter wasn't discouraging critical challenge, it was discouraging the teaching of religious-based propaganda in schools as scientific theory.

Epicman

09-23-2005, 01:56 AM

From MSNBC AP Story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9368495/
" http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/sourceAP.gif Updated: 5:39 p.m. ET Sept. 20, 2005

LAWRENCE, Kan. - Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology.

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.

Nobel winners urge educators to back evolution

Kansas school board weighing proposal to give more time to critics "

Read these articles carefully people - this is EXACTLY how misconceptions get started which in turn creates controversy...

"Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory..."
-and-
"The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design."

In the first quote above it states in the letter "38...laureates asked...to reject proposed science standards..."
Those standards, defined in the second quote "are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution...they do not endorse intelligent design."

Where Greer does it state anything about "religious-based propaganda" in the letter as you state? (Go to the link above for the full article)

Anyone reading the article can clearly see that these 'scientists' are trying to dicourage the board from adopting standards that would "expose students to more criticism of evolution." Criticism of evolution... Criticism of a theory.

Again Why would a scientist discourage the criticism of any theory? Let alone 38 of them who won a Nobel Prize?

Aconite

09-23-2005, 02:07 AM

Anyone reading the article can clearly see that these 'scientists' are trying to dicourage the board from adopting standards that would "expose students to more criticism of evolution." Criticism of evolution... Criticism of a theory.

Again Why would a scientist discourage the criticism of any theory? Let alone 38 of them who won a Nobel Prize?
Epicman, the problem, as has been stated in the court case over proposed stickers on science textbooks, is the nature of the criticism. It is not scientific or science-based criticism; it is religion-based. The criticism in question dismisses evolution as "merely a theory" ("theory" means something different in science than it does in religion), and tries to present it as something on the level of "opinion." Scientists, even religious ones, have a problem with things like that. (Maybe you should ask yourself, "Why would 38 Nobel-Prize winning scientists oppose this?")

Greer

09-23-2005, 07:37 AM

Epicman, one of the many problems with your argument is, as Aconite touches on, you are ignoring the assumptions that the 38 Nobel Prize winners are not. It's a question of ideology. Not really that difficult to understand. There are no misconceptions here, as you imply -- just pretty basic critical thinking skills, which, unfortunately, appear to be largely absent in this debate.

Also, and this should go without saying, taking one article (AP no less!) and pulling quotes from it without larger contextualization (and I don't mean the context of the article) does not an argument make.

Epicman

09-23-2005, 09:39 AM

Again this is seriously off topic - a statement that I made concerning my book and the issue it addresses has been singled out. I'll clear the waters a little by letting you know that I am a scientist and a Christian. I struggled with the opposing views of my faith-based beliefs and my science-based investigation of theories that are scientifically based and supported. I examined evolution solely from a scientific viewpoint. I also examined the Biblical account of Creation from a scientific viewpoint. YES this is possible. Take an individual statement made in the Bible concerning just a single Creation event. Ask if that event is scientifically feasible. Examine it using the scientific method. Here is one example:

The cockroach. If you went way back in time - millions or even billions of years ago. (BTW I am not a young-earth Creationist.) It is completely scientifically feasible and logical that a single breeding pair of cockroaches could have reproduced and through many generations spanning millions or billions of years populated the entire planet. Some of these, depending upon their particular distribution, adapted and changed (evolved) to better survive the environment in which they found themselves (adaptability). I also subscribe to the survival of the fittest idea as a method of improving the breeding stock and making a more resiliant creature over time. Ther is scientific support of this - is there not?

My next step - to find the Biblical support of this idea. I found that it does not go against anything found in the Bible, in fact I have found numerous instances where the Bible supports the above idea. Now look at the converse. I have both scientific and Biblical support of several components of evolutionary theory and scientific support of Biblical ideas.

WHile this is just a scratching of the surface of wht my book is all about I will ask you this one question: If the sides of the issue can be brought to this point in agreement how far are we from settling the bulk of this debate?

What I have done with my research is to scientifically support the events of Creation and Biblically supported most of the evolution theory. I totally support a scientific evaluation and critique of the Biblical account of Creation AND a scientific critique of evolution.

What is wrong with this? What is wrong with changing the way science approaches sceptics? what is wrong with an attempt to bring the sides together in a mutual understanding without resorting to browbeating the other side? Your methods have not worked so far so logic should tell your scientific minds that a new approach is necessary. That is what I have done.

If you look at both sides and determine the level of closed-mindedness I could definitely say that it looks as if the roles have been reversed. Open your minds and take a look at a new approach to this debate that scientists haven't been able to solve for many many years.

NeuroFizz

09-23-2005, 04:47 PM

What I have done with my research is to scientifically support the events of Creation and Biblically supported most of the evolution theory. I totally support a scientific evaluation and critique of the Biblical account of Creation AND a scientific critique of evolution.

Hi, Glenn

What research are you talking about here? Where is it published? Don't say your book, because that doesn't count. If you are a scientist who has investigated this matter, please direct us to something other than a self-published book. I'm not being mean, I'm being scientifically objective.

I have one other question. You state that your theory meshes evolutionary theory with the teachings of the bible. Whose bible? There are many religions in this world, and each has it's version of the "good book." In your research, are you starting with the assumption that your religion is the one true religion? Do you bring in ideas from the source books of other religions? Is your theory comparative? Or do feel there is no need to be?

And your speculation on cockroach evolution is laughable, coming from a scientist. I'm sorry, but it appears to me you are not trying to unify these two divergent schools, you are trying to fit evolution into your religion. There is a huge difference.

Please prove me wrong. Get your book reviewed by impartial academics from both areas: religious studies and biological evolution areas. Let us see how experts who have active research programs in these areas evaluate your ideas.

maestrowork

09-23-2005, 06:05 PM

"Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined" ISBN 190536329X was first noted on Amazon.com at 532,000 (HIGH) on Sept. 1.
Sept. 2 at 77,000
Sept. 3 at 129,000
Sept. 6 at 386,000
Sept. 10 at 512,000
Sept. 15 at 49,000 (LOW)
Sept. 16 at 87,000
Sept. 18 at 120,000
and currently at 388,000
(rounded down nearest 1,000)

Amazon.com ranking doesn't really mean that much. It just means you have sold 1 or 2 copies a week. When your ranking goes from 500,000 to 50,000 -- it probably just means you've sold one copy that day... meaning none of the other 450,000 books have sold any. Clearly nothing to brag about.

What do the numbers mean in terms of sales?... (Look for spikes in the rankings)

Sept. 1 at 532,000
Sept. 2 at 77,000 -- you've sold one or two copies
Sept. 3 at 129,000 -- no sale
Sept. 6 at 386,000 -- no sale
Sept. 10 at 512,000 -- no sale
Sept. 15 at 49,000 (LOW) -- sold one or two copies
Sept. 16 at 87,000 -- no sale
Sept. 18 at 120,000 -- no sale
and currently at 388,000 -- no sale

(you only have two spikes so far)

Frex, my initial ranking was 211,000 and my lowest ranking was 478,000 and my highest was 31,000 -- and my book's five months away from release (virtually no marketing effort now and no reviews out yet)... My tracking told me that I had at least 5 spikes in the past two weeks... * still nothing to write home about*

With your niche and fan base and the kind of marketing you're doing, you should expect better numbers than 1 copy a week (50 a year). If you're spending more on marketing than you're making (even at the profit margin you set), you need to reevaluate your strategy.

ResearchGuy

09-23-2005, 06:45 PM

...I totally support a scientific evaluation and critique of the Biblical account of Creation....
Excellent! Allow me to recommend that you begin by reading Gary Greenberg's 101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., copyright 2000; pub. in paperback 2002). Greenberg is president of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York. It is the most illuminating exploration I have yet found of the sources (Egyptian, Greek, and Sumerian) and contradictions and inconsistencies (numerous) of biblical mythology and legend and folklore.

--Ken

James D. Macdonald

09-23-2005, 07:59 PM

Here's the full text of that letter:

http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf

This is an awful long way from Background Check/publishing/self-publishing/Infinity Publishing.

The Creationism/Intelligent Design/Evolution discussion belongs in Take It Outside.

The blow-by-blow on selling this book belongs in one of the Self-publishing/POD groups.

And the whole thing should be renamed to "Diggory Press" because I think there was perhaps one post at the very beginning about Infinity.

Pretty soon I'm going to make all that happen.

sellthepharm

09-23-2005, 10:47 PM

This is something that is probably best taken outside to the Take IT Outside board. If you wish to discuss this further with me, I would be glad to help where I can.

The bible as we know it today is not necessarily the same as it was given in oral traditions thousands of years ago. Every version of the bible is a translation and most are also transcriptions of oral traditions.

None of what we have today can be given as "original." We simply do not have any original manuscripts. Even the latest books to come to us are far from original.

Sorry to clog this with an Outside argument. I do feel that the value of a commercial theological publisher is their ability to verify the text as within arguable truth.

This is not to say that I doubt the theory put forth in your book. I haven't read it yet.

Allen

Here's an interesting article that was posted in a different thread. It addresses the issue of biblical translations and is quite enlightening. The provided link also gives some interesting reading.

Below is a post from a different thread that addresses some of the aspects of biblical translations, albeit this comment deals with the New Testament texts.

Quote:

I must take issue with this. The different translations may vary in certain words but the meaning has not been lost. Far from it.
For those who want to jump into the really deep end of the pool, here's a fascinating study dealing with the subject of biblical translations.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalst...ation.htm#back1 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/kjvevaluation.htm#back1)

Some of the more salient points made in this article as they relate to the above post:

1. The ~5400 manuscripts of the New Testament which we currently possess do differ in several places, as is to be expected with the written transmission of any historical document. This is not to say that we have no certainty as to the original wording of the New Testament. Textual critics have ascertained the certainty of 98.33 % of the text

2. Less than two percent of the text is subject to question, making the New Testament the best preserved ancient text known to man. It is the remaining 1.67 %, however, which affects the different translations of the New Testament available today.

It is to be noted that the conclusion of this fine article points out that the variant readings of the manuscripts do not affect any major Biblical doctrines and do not change the Biblical message.

sellthepharm

09-23-2005, 11:20 PM

I watched a program on TV where they showed how certain moths actually changed color over a period of many years so they could blend in with the changing environment. We have so much to learn!

I too have seen this program and heard this argument presented over the years as proof of evolution, species reacting to their environment and evolving to survive. I believe it was even in a textbook of mine as a child.

If I remember correctly, this example involved moths in 19th century England in a heavily industrial part of the country. The air was heavily polluted and, as a result, even the trees had taken on a rather darkened appearance. The lighter colored moths who chose to land on such darkened surfaces stood out and made ready targets of themselves for the birds. Over time the population of lighter colored moths dwindled until they all but disappeared.

Then, there was a noticeable increase in the population of dark colored moths. Those in evolutionary circles hailed this as proof of evolution. The lighter colored moths evolved to adapt to their environment, they had to evolve or they would have become extinct. Proof positive evolution exists.

Or was it? I heard a competing theory a few years ago that, I must admit, makes a lot of sense and throws a serious monkey wrench into evolutionary theory, at least in this instance. The theory is as follows:

What if there were always light and dark colored moths? Existing at the same time? When the evironment changed due to pollution the lighter colored moth populations declined because of increased predation, allowing the darker colored moths to proliferate at a greater rate simply because they were more difficult for predators to see?

Makes sense to me. In fact, it makes more sense than the evolutionists' claim that these moths somehow mysteriously evolved to adapt to their environment. Whether you're an evolutionist or creationist, the second explanation just seems more plausible.

ResearchGuy

09-23-2005, 11:23 PM

...2. Less than two percent of the text is subject to question, making the New Testament the best preserved ancient text known to man. ...
For the REST of the story, see Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scriptures and the Faiths We Never Knew, by Bart D. Ehrman (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), and the companion book Lost Scriptures. Also: Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (Knopf, 2003). Also of related interest (though out of print), Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. Also: Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (HarperCollins, 1993). The New Testament may be "well preserved," but it is nonetheless an amalgam (with numerous contraditions and demonstrable errors of purported facts) of myths, legends, and imaginative extrapolation alongside sectarian exhortations crafted by the winners in the struggle among vastly differing interpretations of a deeply buried source. In short: almost entirely fictitious plus selected (and often tendentious) extrapolations based on the fictions.

The Ehrman books are particularly illuminating to anyone who has naively accepted the conventional wisdom handed down by the organized church. (He has written other books more oriented to scholars, too.)

--Ken

Aconite

09-23-2005, 11:31 PM

Or was it? I heard a competing theory a few years ago that, I must admit, makes a lot of sense and throws a serious monkey wrench into evolutionary theory, at least in this instance. The theory is as follows:

What if there were always light and dark colored moths? Existing at the same time? When the evironment changed due to pollution the lighter colored moth populations declined because of increased predation, allowing the darker colored moths to proliferate at a greater rate simply because they were more difficult for predators to see?

Pharm, that is evolution. That's the part known as "survival of the fittest": that the individuals best suited to survive in their environment are the ones that will survive to reproduce. Evolution does not apply to individuals; it applies to species. Evolution does not claim that an individual moth will change from light to dark; it claims that the species will show changes over time as the species adapts to changing conditions.

I should add that the moths in question were light-morphs and dark-morphs of the same species, btw.

ResearchGuy

09-23-2005, 11:39 PM

...What if there were always light and dark colored moths? Existing at the same time? ...
Allow me to recommend that you read a good textbook on genetics. Find out what DNA is and how it works. Learn what genes are, and alleles. Perhaps some time with, say, Lodish et al.'s Molecular Cell Biology would also be helpful. Then you will understand that in this sentence you have encapsulated a key concept of evolution:

When the evironment changed due to pollution the lighter colored moth populations declined because of increased predation, allowing the darker colored moths to proliferate at a greater rate simply because they were more difficult for predators to see?
Yes, that is EXACTLY how evolution works. The traits that better enable survival and reproduction (the genes encoding those traits) are passed down in increasing numbers, while those that are conducive to early death and lack of reproduction fade.

I bet you did not realize that you had stated as an argument against evolution EXACTLY what IS the core of evolution. There is nothing mysterious about it. Complicated, yes, especially when you get to the molecular level, but not mysterious.

--Ken

reph

09-24-2005, 03:42 AM

Proof positive evolution exists.

Or was it? I heard a competing theory a few years ago that, I must admit, makes a lot of sense and throws a serious monkey wrench into evolutionary theory, at least in this instance. The theory is as follows:

What if there were always light and dark colored moths?
StPharm: Aconite and RGuy pointed out that this isn't a competing theory at all; it's the same theory. Evolution says simply that changes in populations happen all the time.

Here's another example: Bacteria that cause infections are constantly evolving because their environment includes antibiotics. We can think of antibiotics as predators on bacteria, as birds preyed on the English moths. The drugs don't eat bacteria, but they kill them. A dead bacterium won't divide to produce offspring. When a patient takes an antibiotic, if all the bacteria – the individual cells in the colony – are genetically identical and are susceptible to that drug, they'll die. The infection stops. But bacteria reproduce fast. If a mutation produces an individual that's resistant to the drug, the individual's descendants will (usually) inherit its resistance and repopulate the colony. The bacterium has evolved into a form that won't be killed by that antibiotic. Now it enters the larger environment, and we have a new resistant strain. That's why people in hospitals die of staph infections. Antibiotics have been used so much and so long that there are bacterial strains around that survive treatment with all the antibiotics we have.

The lighter colored moths evolved to adapt to their environment, they had to evolve or they would have become extinct.
It isn't as if the moths or the bacteria were trying to do something. It's just that individuals with a particular color (moths) or chemical makeup (bacteria) had a better chance of surviving and reproducing in those conditions.

veinglory

09-24-2005, 04:03 AM

Indeed, the theory of intelligent design is still not science and should not appear in the science curriculum--by all means add it to the humanities/social science curriculum but otherwise it is just the same old effort to suppress the teaching of natural selection. Nothing I have read of ID looks remotely like a scientific hypothesis-I mean it is based on a 'selector' test that isn't even good rhetoric let along empircally falsifiable.

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 05:31 AM

Whoa, everyone!! Let me up! Feel free to believe what you want, by all means. I merely found this particular example of the moths to be interesting, nothing more.

As for your comments here, Research Guy,

Allow me to recommend that you read a good textbook on genetics. Find out what DNA is and how it works. Learn what genes are, and alleles. Perhaps some time with, say, Lodish et al.'s Molecular Cell Biology would also be helpful. Then you will understand that in this sentence you have encapsulated a key concept of evolution:

Recommend all you want because I won't have to go far to 'read and learn'. A copy of my genetics book sits right next to my cell biology book, which resides beside my comparative vertebrate anatomy book, which is next to my microbiology book, and many others which guided me toward my Bachelors of Science in Biology in 1985. So I am (or was!) well versed in genes, alleles, etc.

RG, I never claimed to be an expert on evolution or creationism. I merely cited an example and commented on my own thoughts on the matter.
I will be happy to carry on a reasoned and civil debate on just about any topic, as evidenced by many posts here in the TIO, including creationism and evolution, although I freely admit that I am no expert.
However, I believe we can all do without the smug and condescending attitude of your above post, especially in light of your off-base assumptions regarding the education of people you know nothing about.
The TIO is populated by many people I disagree with, and on a range of different issues. But we respect each other's opinions whether we agree or disagree with them. Your contemptuous attitude has no place here.

ResearchGuy

09-24-2005, 05:57 AM

...As for your comments here, Research Guy....
I asked you to allow me to recommend, and you chose not to so allow. No problem.

:-)

I still think it is amusing that someone offers a key concept of evolution as if it were an argument against evolution. Some might forgive me for drawing the inference that I did. (I could only read the words, not the mind.) But it is fine if you are not among them.

:-D

--Ken

reph

09-24-2005, 06:05 AM

I merely found this particular example of the moths to be interesting, nothing more.
But you independently offered exactly the same mechanism that evolutionists use to explain the historical change in the moth population. They believe the same thing you do about it. That's more than interesting.

robeiae

09-24-2005, 06:52 AM

Here is an excellent (IMO) learning aid for evolutionary theory:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

This portion is very similar to the moth situation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_25

Now with regard to the story of the moths:

Yes it is true, that the story STP tells might be an excellent description of natural selection. However, an underlying assumption to make this leap is that the moths (light and dark) were the same species of moth. If the two kinds of moths were two entirely different species, then the tale is not so clearly one that supports evolution theory, unless you assume evolution has already been taking place (a bit too circular for me).

ETA: I missed Aconite's notation that the moths were, in fact, of the same species, meaning that in this case, an argument for natural selection is supported. Nonetheless, as originally presented by STP, it was not. (I don't know how I missed that, Aconite--it wasn't intentional!!)

Rob :)

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 07:13 AM

But you independently offered exactly the same mechanism that evolutionists use to explain the historical change in the moth population. They believe the same thing you do about it. That's more than interesting.

Not exactly Reph. We don't believe the same thing.

In the strictest sense of the phrase, I am a believer in "survival of the fittest" argument, even though some regard it as tautological. Where evolutionists and I part ways is in the cause of this survival. I believe the cause lies in the genome of the particular species, which either has or does not have the potential or capability to survive under a certain set of conditions.

Where I disagree with the Darwinists is in giving natural selection the capability of acting upon a species, giving it a causal definition when it is, in reality, nothing more than an effect. A contemporary of Darwin's, Alfred Russel Wallace, made a similar statement in 1855:

""We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."

A further reading of Wallace (Darwin's compatriot) reveals that WAllace believed the true cause of evolution was unknown and , in effect , created. To attribute it to natural selection/survival of the fittest is to assign some mystical force acting upon species rather than treating it as an effect.

Epicman

09-24-2005, 07:29 AM

OK. I have found the text of the letter from the Nobel winners. The PDF link that James provided earlier does not work. Here is the link to the HTML version

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:cLOgl7T4Nw0J:media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf+Nobel+letter+Kansas&hl=en

So Greer, here it is without the AP embellishment you don't like. In other words: the exact quotes taken from the exact text of the exact letter DOES an argument make.

First paragraph last sentence:
"We reject efforts by the proponents of so-called “intelligent design” to politicize scientific inquiry and urge the Kansas State Board of Education to maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum and science standard in the State of Kansas."

"maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum and science standard"

Why the SOLE curriculum and science standard? What exactly are they afraid of? An open mind? Inquiry? Criticism? Are these elements not crucial to scientific sudy in the first place?

Second paragraph last sentence:
"We are also concerned by the Board’s recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution."

My statement far above in this post. Why would a scientist be afraid of and discourage a "greater criticism of evolution"? Criticism of any theory is how we have progressed. No criticism or challenge of old ideas = no progress. We would still be thinking that illnesses were caused because we displeased the gods or didnt sacrifice enough animals.

Last paragraph:
"When it meets in October, 2005, we urge the Kansas State Board of Education to vote against the latest draft of standards, which propose including intelligent design in academic curriculum."

Once again the Kansas board stated in its policy that it DOES NOT support ID theory. Mistranslation and misconception AGAIN!

In summary we have scientists discouraging the criticism of a theory - that in and of itself is unscientific. We further have these scientists championing a cause "...the latest draft of standards, which propose including intelligent design in academic curriculum." that is based upon a false misconception. The proposed standards state no support of ID.

To sum up my position I DO NOT refute survival of the fittest, variation of species, use and disuse, and many other components of Evolution theory. In fact I find Biblical support for them.

Quite a few of the posts are missing and I don't know where to find them - I guess it happened in the move. I found one that was in answer to Neurofizz - here it is.

" Neurofizz I did have my work/research evaluated by over 40 people before I finalized my book. Many additions and deletions were made. There are three major universities in the area - two of them have a reputation for scientific research. One is the OU Health Sciences Center - one of the leading research institutions in the country.

Anyhow the majority of the forty were from the academic side with an even split between those who indicated an aetheistic point of view and those who believed in a higher power. Of those with an aetheistic viewpoint all of them supported vigorously the separation of church and state and indicated they are actively involved in the cause. Of those who subscribed to a higher power all were Christian with the majority of those being split between Catholic and Baptist. Of all those from the academic side 16 are PhD holders, 4 held Masters degrees, and 5 were students (college). The other reviewers were drawn from the general population with 2 being high school students, 4 were ministers, and the remaining were just regular people. Of those roughly half were aetheists with the remainder being Christian.

I asked all to read the manuscript and to provide the following:

Is there anything you did not understand?
Is there anything inaccurate?
Are there any spelling/grammar mistakes?
Is there anything you disagree with and why?
Is there anything that needs clarification?
Is there anything that should be added?
Are the illustrations and theories within feasable?
Did the writing change your mind about certain things?
Would you recommend this to someone else?

Only 2 dissenters - PhD holders and both aetheists - found major flaws which they could not specify and offer a correction for. None of them found any of my illustrations 'laughable'. A true scientist would say this is wrong and here is why and would follow that up with an alternate explanation - in layperson's terms. The vast majority were excited about the possibilities that a layperson's translation - which is what I wanted to accomplish - would bring as far as a more productive discourse rather than the constant debate and browbeating that is prevalent within the topic. More importantly the high school students understood the writing and the more advanced readers found it engaging.

As far as peer review I have done that - but in a different way. One of my main contentions is that the Creation/Evolution debate has gone on so long due to one side (scientific) burying the other in technical jargon that they cannot comprehend. This is further complicated because unqualified translators (journalists) interpret these scientific journals, add their sensationalistic twists, and deliver them to the masses leaving them with inaccuracies and misconceptions. Look at the cloning debate and its roots for an illustration of this.

To answer another question specifically: I did use the Bible as a basis of comparison because - at least in the US - it is the majority's choice of religious guide. Another important point: my ideas presented in the book are easily "plugged" into other religions that subscribe to a Creationist viewpoint.

I am NOT attempting to get evolution to 'fit' religion. I am attempting to analize each component of evolution theory utilizing the scientific method and delivering the analysis in layperson terminology. I then subject each component to a Biblical support test. I also do the reverse: I subject the individual components of the Biblical Creation event to a scientific method analysis using the question "Does current scientific knowledge support that this occurance is feasable?"

So... if you could get the Creationist side to agree that natural selection, variation of species, use and disuse, etc. is feasable AND scientifically AND Biblically supported how far has this non-productive debate progressed?
If you could get past the 'apes to man' idea that has been keeping the other side totally against any component of evolution theory and get them to consider the rest of the theory how far have we come?

Methods used currently to discredit and humiliate that then turn to technical jargon in an attempt to shoo them away have only proven to be extremely unproductive thus far. This is anti-science and anti-scientific in every sense. My fresh approach to this is a translation of terms that leaves no room for misconception.

Another of you critiques the AP article. If that is true then this further supports my idea of mistranslation by unqualified sources and the spread of misconception - doesn't it? Why dont we try to locate the exact text of the letter and critique that? I still say that the fact that the Kansas boards proposal states a non-support of Intelligent Design takes the "religion-based propaganda" argument out of the equation and still leaves us with the fact that scientists are discouraging the critique of a theory."

ANd for those wondering the old Infinity thread on bewares has been renamed to "Diggory" and placed in the "POD publishing and E-publishing forum (Just in case you wish to follow my progress with a little known POD).
__________________
Epicman

Glenn S. Hamilton
http://www.cometogetherbooks.com (http://www.cometogetherbooks.com/)

DeniseK

09-24-2005, 08:10 AM

This has nothing to do with this thread, but Mr.Hamilton, you have the word "released" on your website twice in a row, the text on the right is not a good quality, and the date of your signing should say Oct. 2005. Also, there is a way to adjust the site so that it's centered, no matter the screen it's viewed in. Just thought I'd point these things out, a professional looking website is crucial, imho.

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 08:37 AM

The New Testament may be "well preserved," but it is nonetheless an amalgam (with numerous contraditions and demonstrable errors of purported facts) of myths, legends, and imaginative extrapolation alongside sectarian exhortations crafted by the winners in the struggle among vastly differing interpretations of a deeply buried source. In short: almost entirely fictitious plus selected (and often tendentious) extrapolations based on the fictions.

RG, it would be interesting to know some of these myths, legends, contradictions, errors, etc. It would also be interesting to know if you discovered these errors through your own careful study of the NT or if you are relying on the words of others. BTW, I'm not being critical of either answer. Just curious.

reph

09-24-2005, 08:54 AM

Where I disagree with the Darwinists is in giving natural selection the capability of acting upon a species, giving it a causal definition when it is, in reality, nothing more than an effect....
Wallace believed the true cause of evolution was unknown and , in effect , created. To attribute it to natural selection/survival of the fittest is to assign some mystical force acting upon species rather than treating it as an effect.
I don't see that you disagree with the Darwinists, at least the current ones. To attribute evolution to natural selection isn't to view natural selection as a mystical force; it's simply to describe what happens in a population over time when reproductive rates vary between forms of a species.

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 09:31 AM

I don't see that you disagree with the Darwinists, at least the current ones. To attribute evolution to natural selection isn't to view natural selection as a mystical force; it's simply to describe what happens in a population over time when reproductive rates vary between forms of a species.

Reph,

If what you're saying is that varying reproduction rates between forms of a species in a given population are the result of natural selection/survival of the fittest, then we agree.

If you're saying natural selection/survival of the fittest is the cause , well.....
then we disagree.

Epicman

09-24-2005, 10:11 AM

THANK YOU SARAH! I shot my webmaster and corrected the problems. The signing is in September not October.

Constructive Debate and Criticism are always productive and welcome - is that not why we are here?

Optimus

09-24-2005, 10:17 AM

Greer

09-24-2005, 06:39 PM

Carole

09-24-2005, 07:44 PM

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain
_________________________

Something I have learned in my brief and largely inconsequential existence is that to wholly disregard differing opinions, while proclaiming your own to be the purest form of fact, does nothing but leave you wide open and practically primed for ridicule and ultimately failure.

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 08:04 PM

Darwin was a Christian who devoted the entire book The Origin of Species to God.

To think that his evolutionary principles are somehow anti-Bible or anti-God (not saying that has been done here, but is done by the majority of anti-evolutionists) is to show a total ignorance of the both the content and the intent of his writings.

I have to disagree here, Optimus.

Darwin was certainly exposed to Christian influences as a youth but it is clear that he drifted from whatever faith he might have had as a child and descended into disbelief, as evidenced by many of his later writings:

"I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#anybarbarian)."

the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events"; and his rejection of the Gospel events: "they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses."
Summing up the above, he wrote, "by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#disbelieve) in Christianity as a divine revelation."

I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#fortyyearsofage)." He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#witheredgradually)."

"I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#damnabledoctrine)," In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#SonofGod)."

"I must look forward to Down graveyard (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#Downgraveyard) as the sweetest place on earth."

Not exactly the comments of a devout Christian, or even a lukewarm Christian.

There is some speculation as to whether or not Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed and then recanted evolution, a popular tale told by many in pulpits today. In fact, I have personally heard this from several pastors over the years.

But a little research reveals a deathbed conversion probably never occurred. The best known account of this possibility is attributed to a Lady Hope, who recalls visiting a bed-ridden Darwin and finding him reading the book of Hebrews. They talked and he asked her to return to further discuss Scripture.

The only problem is that members of Darwin's family firmly reject this notion. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley in 1887 and said the report that DArwin had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ""false and without any kind of foundation".

His daughter wrote in 1922:"I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … The whole story has no foundation whatever." [The Darwin Legend (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#darwindeathbedstories)] Even though I question whether or not Darwin converted on his deathbed, I differ from those who gleefully posit the theory that he is presently burning in Hell. I hope he did convert.

ResearchGuy

09-24-2005, 08:08 PM

For another view, see http://www.venganza.org/. No one has disproven the case for FSM.

--Ken

ResearchGuy

09-24-2005, 08:43 PM

RG, it would be interesting to know some of these myths, legends, contradictions, errors, etc. It would also be interesting to know if you discovered these errors through your own careful study of the NT or if you are relying on the words of others. BTW, I'm not being critical of either answer. Just curious.
I believe I cited a list of sources. There are many more, not all of which I have conveniently at hand, and some of which I read perhaps thirty years ago. But the ones I cited should be more than most people have time or inclination to read anyway. I am not going to recite here what folks can read for themselves elsewhere. It would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

My views are the result of many years of reading (off and on) in history, mythology, biblical archeology, textual analysis, and, of course, the Bible itself, in various translations, and selected writings (in translation) that were excluded from the final NT compilation. See Ehrman's books (and others -- he is only one scholar among many in the field). So the answer is, both. I don't claim any "discovery," of course, but a side-by-side reading of the Gospels quickly shows contradictions and inconsistencies to any objective reader. That is old news. (Different people reach different conclusions as to what should be inferred from or read into those contradictions and inconsistencies. I believe that their own frameworks decide the conclusions they reach. Those whose framework is faith will reach different conclusions than will those whose framework is history and documentary analysis.)

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, to cite a volume you might find in a Christian bookstore (that is where I bought mine), matter-of-factly discusses such points as they come up, verse by verse.

For an unusually crafted but illuminating examination of the whole setting in which Christianity arose, see Keith Hopkins, A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity (The Free Press, 1999). I don't think I had mentioned that one before. Bear in mind that one can read such works alongside the Bible itself (as well as other resources) and draw one's own conclusions as to what is so. I have developed my point of view through that process over a lifetime -- as others have developed their own views reflecting their own experience, reading, and interpretation.

--Ken

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 11:04 PM

I believe I cited a list of sources. There are many more, not all of which I have conveniently at hand, and some of which I read perhaps thirty years ago. But the ones I cited should be more than most people have time or inclination to read anyway. I am not going to recite here what folks can read for themselves elsewhere. It would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

My views are the result of many years of reading (off and on) in history, mythology, biblical archeology, textual analysis, and, of course, the Bible itself, in various translations, and selected writings (in translation) that were excluded from the final NT compilation. See Ehrman's books (and others -- he is only one scholar among many in the field). So the answer is, both. I don't claim any "discovery," of course, but a side-by-side reading of the Gospels quickly shows contradictions and inconsistencies to any objective reader. That is old news. (Different people reach different conclusions as to what should be inferred from or read into those contradictions and inconsistencies. I believe that their own frameworks decide the conclusions they reach. Those whose framework is faith will reach different conclusions than will those whose framework is history and documentary analysis.)

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, to cite a volume you might find in a Christian bookstore (that is where I bought mine), matter-of-factly discusses such points as they come up, verse by verse.

For an unusually crafted but illuminating examination of the whole setting in which Christianity arose, see Keith Hopkins, A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity (The Free Press, 1999). I don't think I had mentioned that one before. Bear in mind that one can read such works alongside the Bible itself (as well as other resources) and draw one's own conclusions as to what is so. I have developed my point of view through that process over a lifetime -- as others have developed their own views reflecting their own experience, reading, and interpretation.

--Ken

Sorry Ken, I may not have been clear. I wasn't looking for sources. I was looking for specific examples of some of these inconsistencies, errors, contradictions, etc. you claim exist in the Bible and whether or not you discovered these errors through your own careful study of the Scriptures or are relying on the opinions of others.

I too have given the Scriptures (both OT and NT) a careful, objective examination over the years. Many times, in fact, and am always somewhat amused by those who trumpet that there are such glaring inconsistencies in the texts but never offer any examples when asked. When I ask if they discovered these inaccuracies on their own they almost always either decline to answer or cite some other outside influence (book, speaker, etc) as their source.

Not trying to put you on the spot here, Ken. Just clarifying my earlier request for information. And I doubt if anyone here is going to begrudge us a little bandwidth for a rational and reasoned discussion over this issue of perceived inaccuracies and errors in the Bible.
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

reph

09-24-2005, 11:09 PM

Reph,

If what you're saying is that varying reproduction rates between forms of a species in a given population are the result of natural selection/survival of the fittest, then we agree.

If you're saying natural selection/survival of the fittest is the cause , well.....
then we disagree.
Yes, I'm saying varying reproduction rates are the result of natural selection. Yes, I'm saying natural selection is the cause of varying reproduction rates.

That's saying the same thing in two ways. How can you disagree with one statement and agree with the other? Either I'm totally confused or you are.

I could also say natural selection results from varying reproduction rates, and the varying rates cause natural selection. More precisely, differential reproduction is the mechanism for a process that, at a higher level of abstraction, we call natural selection.

Elsewhere, you write:
Darwin was certainly exposed to Christian influences as a youth but it is clear that he drifted from whatever faith he might have had as a child and descended into disbelief...
"Descended"? I would have described it differently: Darwin changed his opinion about what's real.

And:
I differ from those who gleefully posit the theory that [Darwin] is presently burning in Hell. I hope he did convert.
Only within a particular set of beliefs (yours, evidently) are those thought to be the choices.

reph

09-24-2005, 11:20 PM

Sorry Ken, . . . I was looking for specific examples of some of these inconsistencies, errors, contradictions, etc. you claim exist in the Bible. . .
I'm not Ken, but here's an easy one. Genesis contains two inconsistent accounts of creation. In Chapter 1, God makes earth and heaven on the second day and plants on the third day. He makes animals on the fifth day and man and woman on the sixth day. In Chapter 2, God makes heaven, earth, and plants on the same (unspecified) day. Later he makes man, animals, and woman, in that order.

sellthepharm

09-24-2005, 11:46 PM

That's saying the same thing in two ways. How can you disagree with one statement and agree with the other? Either I'm totally confused or you are.

It's not the same thing, Reph. I'm sorry for your confusion. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

I view natural selection/survival of the fittest as just that, survival. Nothing more. I view it as a result of a species reacting to its environment, based on its specific predetermined genome. I don't believe as some (you, evidently) that natural selection has a causal effect upon a population or species that allows it to adapt to its environment.

A small example: If an entire species say, cats, were suddenly transported to the Arctic (or some other colder environment) it wouldn't take long until the longer haired, furrier animals survived and the shorter-haired animals died out due to cold exposure. Over time (years, decades, centuries), the animals best suited to live in that environment would flourish and populate, while the shorter-haired would become less prevalent.

Evolutionists would claim that natural selection acted upon the population and caused the population to change, caused them to adapt to their environment, in order to survive.

I, and those of similar thinking, say these animals were already predisposed genetically to survive in such an environment. They survived as a result of their already-existing genome and flourished. In other words, they survived.

A simplistic example, perhaps, but it explains my perspective.

Aconite

09-25-2005, 12:05 AM

A small example: If an entire species say, cats, were suddenly transported to the Arctic (or some other colder environment) it wouldn't take long until the longer haired, furrier animals survived and the shorter-haired animals died out due to cold exposure. Over time (years, decades, centuries), the animals best suited to live in that environment would flourish and populate, while the shorter-haired would become less prevalent.

Evolutionists would claim that natural selection acted upon the population and caused the population to change, caused them to adapt to their environment, in order to survive.

I, and those of similar thinking, say these animals were already predisposed genetically to survive in such an environment. They survived as a result of their already-existing genome and flourished. In other words, they survived.

Pharm, what you're missing is that natural selection is a process acting on a given population in a given environment. Evolution claims (as Ken touched on) that the genetic variation among a species' members allows for natural selection, as those best suited by their genetics to survive in their environment survive to reproduce, thereby passing on those genes. If you still don't see how natural selection is causal, then you really don't understand genetics, evolution, or logic. Given your background in science, I'm mystified as to how you can not understand a key concept of biology. Are you sure you're not confusing principles of evolution with those of ID?

Optimus

09-25-2005, 12:25 AM

I have to disagree here, Optimus.

Darwin was certainly exposed to Christian influences as a youth but it is clear that he drifted from whatever faith he might have had as a child and descended into disbelief, as evidenced by many of his later writings:

"I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html#anybarbarian)."

Etc. Etc. Etc....

YOU have to disagree, or www.christiananswers.net (where you copied and pasted all of that without citing it) would have to disagree?

Okay, so maybe he wasn't a Christian later in life. I was referring to some of his motivations for writing the book. Read it. I have. It's interesting.

Now, I'll leave you to your googling.

Peggy

09-25-2005, 12:27 AM

Evolutionists would claim that natural selection acted upon the population and caused the population to change, caused them to adapt to their environment, in order to survive.

Pharm, this sounds like Lamarckism (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html), not modern evolutionary theory.

I, and those of similar thinking, say these animals were already predisposed genetically to survive in such an environment. They survived as a result of their already-existing genome and flourished. In other words, they survived.

My understanding is that this IS natural selection - the existing variation within the genome of a particular population gives its members different traits. If one of those genetic variations allows an individual to have more offspring, the representation of that genetic variation will ultimately increase in the population. The environment doesn't cause the change, instead the environment determines which individuals are likely to pass on their genetic makeup to the next generation - in your example, it's the cats that already have long hair.

Greer

09-25-2005, 12:44 AM

ResearchGuy

09-25-2005, 01:25 AM

Sorry Ken, I may not have been clear. I wasn't looking for sources. I was looking for specific examples of some of these inconsistencies, errors, contradictions, etc. ...
Some start with faith, and interpret the Bible and related learning (history, and so on) in the light of that faith. Others study history, sociology, documentary analysis, mythology, and world religions, and come to understand the Bible in the light of the evidence, not with the eye of the believer. The two types simply cannot communicate. The faith-based cannot understand why others do not share their understanding (sense of grace, communion with God, and so on), while the others don't understand why some people reject the evidence.

It would be fruitless to get into a debate over specifics here, especially where they are insignificant in comparison to the larger context that Hopkins--however idiosyncratically--explores and in comparison to the patterns of myth-building. You are of the one type, I am of the other. In any event the same ground has been plowed over and over and over elsewhere. Neither of us will succeed in changing the other's mind about anything. Folks who want to read up on the controversies can do so.

--Ken

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 04:20 AM

YOU have to disagree, or www.christiananswers.net (http://www.christiananswers.net/) (where you copied and pasted all of that without citing it) would have to disagree?

Okay, so maybe he wasn't a Christian later in life. I was referring to some of his motivations for writing the book. Read it. I have. It's interesting.

Now, I'll leave you to your googling.

Not only did I use www.christiananswers.net (http://www.christiananswers.net/), but also some info from www.truthorfiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com/) and www.carm.org (http://www.carm.org/).
Why should I cite the direct quotes when I never took credit for them? These quotes were used to buttress my point, not to be taken as my words. I thought the quotation marks around the words would have made that clear.
Those quotes are readily accessible and it was never my attempt to take credit for them.

Perhaps a little googling on your part prior to your initial post and you would have realized what you are admitting to here - maybe he wasn't a Christian in later life.

Google is a wonderful thing.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 04:27 AM

It would be fruitless to get into a debate over specifics here, especially where they are insignificant in comparison to the larger context that Hopkins--however idiosyncratically--explores and in comparison to the patterns of myth-building. You are of the one type, I am of the other. In any event the same ground has been plowed over and over and over elsewhere. Neither of us will succeed in changing the other's mind about anything. Folks who want to read up on the controversies can do so.

Ken, you're making my point. You claim inaccuracies, inconsistencies, errors in Scripture and yet refuse to offer up specific instances. You initiated this response by making these claims and then prefer to gloss over any examination or rebuttal of the comments, citing the tired "plowed ground" and "neither of us will change the other's mind" tactic.
However, if you really want to drop the subject, be my guest and I'll do the same.

If not, give us an example or two.

reph

09-25-2005, 04:46 AM

It would be fruitless to get into a debate over specifics here, especially where they are insignificant in comparison to the larger context that Hopkins--however idiosyncratically--explores....
Ken, perhaps you're wiser than I am. I haven't given up yet. By the way, did you mean Dawkins?

Pharm, let's look at your example of cats in the Arctic.
Over time..., the animals best suited to live in that environment would flourish and populate, while the shorter-haired would become less prevalent.

Evolutionists would claim that natural selection acted upon the population and caused the population to change, caused them to adapt to their environment, in order to survive.
Excuse me if this strikes you as condescending, but I don't think you understand what evolutionists believe. "Adapt...in order to survive" is too teleological. Do you remember a post in which I said the moths and bacteria aren't trying to do anything? Survival of the fittest just happens. "Natural selection" isn't a willful entity with a mind. It doesn't "act" in the sense of doing anything intentional. It doesn't have plans or execute plans, and it doesn't "care" whether a group of cats relocated to the Arctic will have any descendants a hundred years from now or not. Natural selection is nothing more than the process you've described: long-haired cats will tolerate cold better and will therefore have more descendants, and the composition of the cat population will change as a result. Please try to understand this.

Natural selection isn't a "force" that takes care of animals that have the right traits. In the cat example, the race of cats that carries the shorthair trait will go extinct in its new location. If the cold is severe enough, both the shorthair and longhair races will go extinct.

That kind of population change accounts for part of the way evolution works. Another important factor is mutation, omitted from your simplified example.

There's a popular misconception about evolutionary theory: that it holds that plants and animals are on some kind of upward road, ever striving for improvement and more closely approaching perfection. It doesn't. Natural selection isn't a force with a goal. But I've already said that.

The phrase "natural selection" refers to a process that goes on all the time, slowly. There is no Natural Selection god that surveys the animal world and decides what to do next.

What have you to say about the two incompatible versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? You asked for examples of biblical contradictions. It's a fine one.

ResearchGuy

09-25-2005, 07:08 AM

Ken, perhaps you're wiser than I am. I haven't given up yet. By the way, did you mean Dawkins?
...
No, I meant Keith Hopkins, whose book I had previously mentioned: A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity. It takes a highly unusual approach to the material, but one that I thought was effective.

--Ken

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 07:24 AM

[QUOTE]
Excuse me if this strikes you as condescending, but I don't think you understand what evolutionists believe. "Adapt...in order to survive" is too teleological. Do you remember a post in which I said the moths and bacteria aren't trying to do anything? Survival of the fittest just happens. "Natural selection" isn't a willful entity with a mind. It doesn't "act" in the sense of doing anything intentional. It doesn't have plans or execute plans, and it doesn't "care" whether a group of cats relocated to the Arctic will have any descendants a hundred years from now or not. Natural selection is nothing more than the process you've described: long-haired cats will tolerate cold better and will therefore have more descendants, and the composition of the cat population will change as a result. Please try to understand this.

Natural selection isn't a "force" that takes care of animals that have the right traits. In the cat example, the race of cats that carries the shorthair trait will go extinct in its new location. If the cold is severe enough, both the shorthair and longhair races will go extinct.

Reph, I don't find this condescending at all and I do understand what you're saying. In fact, as far as the above quote is concerned you and I agree, believe it or not.

You and I (and several others here) may be coming at this debate from two different perspectives. When you say I don't understand what evolutionists believe you have to specify between modern and traditional evolutionary theory. If modern evolutionary theory is nothing more than a survival of the fittest/natural selection argument, where a predetermined genome of a given population allows it to survive or perish in a given environment, then we probably agree.

It is the more traditional definition of evolution that I have a problem with, as evidenced from some of definitions below:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

- Oxford Concise Science DIctionary

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

(By the way Optimus, since you're suddenly obsessed with citing sources, I pulled these quotes from this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html )

However, even a more "modern" definition of evolution seems to incorporate some of the more troubling aspects of the above quoted definitions:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." (the empasis here is mine)

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 I simply have a problem with the theory that modern organisms (man included) evolved from some primordial soup billions of years ago.

So, as far as natural selection/survival of the fittest goes, we may be on the same page. You might want to bring Aconite on board, however.
You say:

It doesn't "act" in the sense of doing anything intentional

Aconite says:

Pharm, what you're missing is that natural selection is a process acting on a given population in a given environment.

But I'll let you two duke that one out! http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

What have you to say about the two incompatible versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? You asked for examples of biblical contradictions. It's a fine one.

Can you be more specific here, Reph? I'm not ducking the question but there's a whole lotta creatin' goin' on in Genesis. Are you referring to Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2? Or Genesis Chapter 1, verse 2?

Either way, if you'll specify the particular perceived contradiction I'll be happy to take a swing at it.

Before I end this rather lengthy post I'd like to say that my comments here in this thread are not meant to stir the pot or incite argument. I am not simply arguing for the sake of argument, as some are wont to do (nobody in this thread, BTW). I respect each individual's viewpoint, even though I may stridently disagree. My comments here are an attempt to defend and explain my thoughts on a particular subject, namely the evolution debate. My goal is only to explaina viewpoint, never to condescend or offend in any way.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 07:54 AM

Pharm, what you're missing is that natural selection is a process acting on a given population in a given environment. Evolution claims (as Ken touched on) that the genetic variation among a species' members allows for natural selection, as those best suited by their genetics to survive in their environment survive to reproduce, thereby passing on those genes. If you still don't see how natural selection is causal, then you really don't understand genetics, evolution, or logic. Given your background in science, I'm mystified as to how you can not understand a key concept of biology. Are you sure you're not confusing principles of evolution with those of ID?

No Aconite, Intelligent Design is a different argument.

And I still say you're mistaking result for cause. Natural selection/survival of the fittest is a result of a population or species predetermined genetic makeup. Those creatures most suited to survive in a particular environment will reproduce and pass on genetic information. But natural selection did not cause them to survive. They survived as a result of their particular genome, because they carried the fittest genetic makeup, not because natural selection caused them to carry the fittest genetic makeup.
Again, I point to a contemporary of Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, who understood this point and commented this way:

""We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand."

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 07:59 AM

ResearchGuy

09-25-2005, 08:28 AM

... citing the tired "plowed ground" and "neither of us will change the other's mind" tactic.
However, if you really want to drop the subject, be my guest and I'll do the same.

If not, give us an example or two.
If you wish to characterize my posts as "tired" or as a "tactic," so be it. You get the last word.

--Ken

Optimus

09-25-2005, 08:29 AM

Pharm,

The perspective you're taking regarding evolution has striking similarities to the ideas (such as punctuated equilibria and genetic saltationism) of Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrege. The ideas (especially that of genetic saltationism, which is often confused for punctuated equilibria) of these men are misleading and strawman the actual beliefs/philosophy of mainstream evolutionary thought, which is why they've been heavily discredited.

It's quite apparent by your intransigence, though, that no one can change your mind or enlighten you as to your gross misperceptions/misunderstanding of true evolutionary theory, so I admire the extreme patience that reph and Ken have shown you. However, I fear they're waging a losing battle that needn't be won anyway.

Reading this thread is like watching a catfight between Gould and Dawkins.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 09:02 AM

It's quite apparent by your intransigence, though, that no one can change your mind or enlighten you as to your gross misperceptions/misunderstanding of true evolutionary theory, so I admire the extreme patience that reph and Ken have shown you.

What you call "extreme patience" I call presenting an opposing viewpoint, which both reph and ken have done quite skillfully. As for intransigence, I would say it runs both ways in this particular argument.
I'm afraid your definition of enlightenment, as is so often the case, only encompasses those who believe as you do. Everyone else with opposing viewpoints is "unenlightened".

But you are right about one thing. Neither side is going to change their mind, not that my intention was ever to change minds. Perhaps this is one case where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Optimus

09-25-2005, 09:18 AM

I'm afraid your definition of enlightenment, as is so often the case, only encompasses those who believe as you do. Everyone else with opposing viewpoints is "unenlightened".

No, but when you show, in a debate involving evolutionary theory, a gross misunderstanding of basic constructs such as "natural selection," even after they've been exhaustively explained to you, that shows, if anything, a refusal to be corrected, if not edified.

But you are right about one thing. Neither side is going to change their mind, not that my intention was ever to change minds. Perhaps this is one case where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Indeed. I believe Ken suggested this about 5 or 6 posts ago. Glad you've finally come around.

reph

09-25-2005, 10:03 AM

So, as far as natural selection/survival of the fittest goes, we may be on the same page. You might want to bring Aconite on board, however.

You say:

Quote:
It doesn't "act" in the sense of doing anything intentional

Aconite says:

Quote:
Pharm, what you're missing is that natural selection is a process acting on a given population in a given environment.

But I'll let you two duke that one out!

Pharm, I don't disagree with Aconite. I think a big problem here is that you're interpreting Aconite's and others' statements about natural selection to mean something they didn't intend. Aconite could as well have said "Natural selection is a process observed in a given population in a given environment" or "a process that occurs in a given population...."

When I said "It doesn't 'act' in the sense of doing anything intentional," I was trying to clarify what "act" means in the particular context – which sense of the word applies here. Don't think of natural selection as a force. Evolution occurs because the genomes change. They change because of differential survival and reproduction rates (and mutations, which we haven't come to yet, but without mutations there'd be no new species). Natural selection is simply the effect of the environment, which includes other organisms of the same species, such as potential mates, and of other species, such as predators and prey, on survival and reproduction.

If you argue against evolutionists by maintaining that natural selection doesn't cause individuals to carry the fittest genes, you're both right and wrong, depending on what you mean. You said:

Natural selection/survival of the fittest is a result of a population or species predetermined genetic makeup. Those creatures most suited to survive in a particular environment will reproduce and pass on genetic information. But natural selection did not cause them to survive [emphasis added]. They survived as a result of their particular genome, because they carried the fittest genetic makeup, not because natural selection caused them to carry the fittest genetic makeup.
Natural selection did not cause them to survive. Right. Natural selection is the fact that the individuals best adapted to their environment did survive and others did not. Please read that sentence at least twice, slowly. I say this because you seem to be assigning "natural selection" to a wrong category of concepts. N.S. is a process, not a force.

Now, in what sense does natural selection produce individuals with "good," or "fit," genes? It does so by operating in each generation. In the sentence immediately preceding, "it" doesn't mean a force or a thing, and "operating" doesn't mean "working to achieve a goal." When we say natural selection acts on a population, we speak metaphorically, much as when we say "Newton's third law acts to lift a rocket off the ground."

There's more, but I've done enough for one evening.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 10:07 AM

I'm not Ken, but here's an easy one. Genesis contains two inconsistent accounts of creation. In Chapter 1, God makes earth and heaven on the second day and plants on the third day. He makes animals on the fifth day and man and woman on the sixth day. In Chapter 2, God makes heaven, earth, and plants on the same (unspecified) day. Later he makes man, animals, and woman, in that order.

Reph, this is a common misperception and one I've heard before. Please note that the following is by no means any attempt at a "gotcha" on my part. It's merely an explanation.

Chapter 1 of Genesis provides a floodlight account (for lack of a better term) of creation, with an individual chronological account of creation.

Day 1 - Heavens, earth, light
Day 2 - Separation of the waters by a firmament, or expanse, between the
waters of the atmosphere and the waters on the earth. This expanse
was called heaven. You have to remember the Hebrew for 'heaven' is
plural and Jewish tradition defined three different 'heaven'(s). I
believe this referred to the sky, the '1st heaven'.
Day 3 - Plant life
Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars
Day 5 - Fish and fowl
Day 6 - Land creatures and man
Day 7 - rested

Chapter 2 provides a supplemental view of the first chapter. Specific days and times are not mentioned, with the possible exception of verse 4, which simply states the former is an account of creation.
Nowhere does it state that heaven, earth, and plants were created on the same day. Similarly, chapter 2 does not record the time the animals were created, only the fact that they were, indeed, created. The mention of Eve's creation in Chapter 2 doesn't suggest a timeline; indeed, Adam and Eve were created at the same time (Chap 1, v 27) and Chap 2 only provides additional details.
Chapter 1 provides the timeline, Chapter 2 provides additional insight into the first chapter, giving us further information about specific events, i.e. man's formation, plant growth, Eve's formation, etc.
Those who attempt to derive specific days from Chapter 2 are left only to assumption, as that is not the purpose of Chapter 2. Thus the resulting confusion and claims of a contradiction when a careful reading of both chapters reveals no contradiction whatsoever.

Again, Reph, I hope you will take this explanation in the vein with which it is offered - merely an explanation and not an attempt at one-upmanship.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 10:14 AM

and mutations, which we haven't come to yet, but without mutations there'd be no new species).

New species caused by mutations? I can't wait to delve into this one!
Please elaborate. I'm genuinely interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion here.

reph

09-25-2005, 10:18 AM

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 10:31 AM

Pat~

09-25-2005, 10:44 AM

Genesis 2:4-7 has heaven, earth, and plants created on the same day.

Gen. 2:18-19 makes clear that Adam was created before animals and birds.

Gen. 2:19-22 similarly makes clear that animals and birds preceded Eve.

These accounts contradict Gen. 1. There's no getting around it.

It might be helpful to post what the account actually says in these references...

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

I think the important thing to realize about Genesis 2 is that it is not a chronological account of creation; it's expounding on the account of creation in chapter 1. In any case, verse 19 does seem to say that the animals were created before Adam (man) and then brought to him for naming. It would also be credible to believe that the fields were created prior to the beasts (and Adam), if God brought the "beasts of the field" to Adam for naming.

reph

09-25-2005, 10:55 AM

You're not listening Reph, something which you have gently pointed out in our evolution debate.
I'm listening; I just don't find that your explanation or the more detailed one on the bibletruths site adequately addresses the contradictions. To say that Gen. 2 doesn't give a timeline fuzzes over the issue. It does give a sequence. The sequence can be inferred easily from the text. Apart from the order in which the successive phases of creation are described, there's what the text says about God's reasons for initiating them.

God created Adam (Gen. 2:7). Then he created land animals and birds so Adam wouldn't be alone (Gen 2:18-19). But none of these creatures proved a suitable companion for Adam (Gen. 2:20). God then created Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

In Gen. 1, animals and birds appeared on the fifth day, man and woman on the sixth day. The creatures over which God gave the new humans "dominion" (King James translation) already existed; see Gen. 1:26.

I'm listening, but I'm reading, too. Genesis 1 says animals preceded Adam. Genesis 2 says Adam preceded animals. Nothing could be clearer.

reph

09-25-2005, 11:06 AM

It might be helpful to post what the account actually says in these references...

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up...
This is what I'm using:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew...

I see that "in the day" (verse 4) has no counterpart in your translation. It's that phrase in the King James that I construe as introducing a story of the creation of plants and Adam on the same day as the earth and the heavens.

Optimus

09-25-2005, 12:48 PM

I read "in the day" as meaning "in the time," as this was a popular usage of the phrase back "in the day."

;)

MacAllister

09-25-2005, 02:23 PM

I'm witnessing the incredibly complex and convoluted explanations, and thinking of Occam's razor.

robeiae

09-25-2005, 04:27 PM

I'm thinking of Foucault's Pendulum. Mac, I believe that in Book-Razor-Pendulum, pendulum beats razor, so I win.

Rob :)

brinkett

09-25-2005, 05:32 PM

A timeline is not delineated in Chapter 2. The timeline is laid out in Chapter 1.
According to a bible commentary I have (Peake's Commentary, 1982, so it's a bit out of date, but I doubt the excerpts I've included below would have changed much since), there are two versions of the creation myth in Genesis, and this might be because scholars think Genesis is based on three different sources. Here is what the commentary states as the two different chronologies (quoting from Peake's):

Chronology according to Genesis 1-2:4a:

The original state of the earth is a watery chaos. The work of creation is divided into six separate operations, each assigned to a day.

The order of creation is:
(a) Light
(b) The firmament-heaven
(c) The dry land-earth. Separation of earth from sea
(d) Vegetation-three orders
(e) The heavenly bodies-sun, moon, and stars
(f) Birds and fishes
(g) Animals and man-male and female together

Chronology according to Genesis 2:4b-25

The original state of the earth is a waterless waste, without vegetation

The order of creation is:
(a) Man, made out of dust, with the breath of Yawheh
(b) The Garden (Paradise)-to the east-in Eden
(c) Trees of every kind, including the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
(d) Animals, beasts and birds (no mention of fishes)
(e) Woman, created out of man

-----

Note that at the top of the post, I said, "the creation myth." Here's a comment about "myth" from Peake's:

In common usage, to say that something is a myth, or mythical, implies that it is not true, and hence many thoughtful people feel that to say the Bible contains myths is the same as saying the Bible contains what is not true. But such an attitude is based on a mistaken idea of the true nature of myth, and also on a mistaken idea of what the Hebrew writer had in mind when he made use of myths, not only in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but elsewhere in the Bible.

In the first place, it is of course true that myth is not history, that is, it is not, and does not profess to be, a record of events which happened in a particular place and at a particular date. But historical truth, important though it is, is not the only type of truth, and a myth can , and often does, represent a kind of truth which cannot be expressed in historical categories. When we call the story of the Fall a myth, we do not deny its truth; we imply rather that its truth lies deeper than the kind of historical truth which rests on dates and documentary evidence. Hence, in order to get the term 'myth' in proper perspective, we must inquire into the origin and function of the myths in the ancient civilisations which form the background of Hebrew religion and culture.

----

As writers, I think we already have an understanding of how truths can be found in stories, and we know that because a story isn't historically true doesn't mean it has nothing important to say and should be dismissed.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 07:08 PM

This is what I'm using:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew...

I see that "in the day" (verse 4) has no counterpart in your translation. It's that phrase in the King James that I construe as introducing a story of the creation of plants and Adam on the same day as the earth and the heavens.

Again, you are assigning a specific timeline to Chapter 2 when it is clear that none is provided, as opposed to Chapter 1 where the days are clearly delineated by the oft-used phrase "and there was was morning and there was evening, the _ day". If the author had intended to continue with a different order of creation in Chapter 2 he would have continued to use said delineations. Chapter 2 merely expounds and expands upon topics covered in Chapter 1. Just because they aren't discussed in the same order as Chap 1 doesn't mean the order of creation changed.

It might be of use to note that the translation I use is not the KJV. I use the New American Standard because I feel it is a superior translation of the original texts. In it, Chapter 2, vv 4-5 reads thus:

4 This is the accountof the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of hte field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Garbarian

09-25-2005, 07:29 PM

unless you've read the original texts, which you haven't, you have no idea if it is a superior translation.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 08:17 PM

Unless you've read the original texts, which you haven't, you have no idea if it is a superior translation.

No, but I can rely on those numerous biblical scholars who have and carefully examine their argument, which I have done. I can sit down with both the KJV and the NAS and decide which presents a clearer message, largely from a more accurate translation of the Hebrew into English.

I wish I could say it was the scholarly part of me that desired the most accurate translation of the Hebrew into English but, in actuality, I was just tired of having to carry a Strong's Concordance along with my Bible!

To use a brief example from our recent discussions in Genesis, take the word "firmament" in Chapter 1 , v6. The KJV uses "firmament" while the NAS uses "an expanse". Both are translations of the Hebrew word 'raqiya' which, according to Strong's, is more properly translated "an expanse".

Garbarian, perhaps 'firmament' is a part of your everyday lexicon. Perhaps you look into the sky on occasion and say "wow, what a firmament".
But I don't. To me, "an expanse" more clearly conveys the meaning of the Hebrew word 'raqiya'. It is within this context that I prefer the NAS. I don't have to read the original texts to prefer a clearer and more understandable translation of a Hebrew word.

brinkett

09-25-2005, 09:07 PM

No, but I can rely on those numerous biblical scholars who have and carefully examine their argument, which I have done.
Yet many biblical scholars believe an order was assigned in chapter two. See my post.

robeiae

09-25-2005, 09:33 PM

The perspective you're taking regarding evolution has striking similarities to the ideas (such as punctuated equilibria and genetic saltationism) of Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrege. The ideas (especially that of genetic saltationism, which is often confused for punctuated equilibria) of these men are misleading and strawman the actual beliefs/philosophy of mainstream evolutionary thought, which is why they've been heavily discredited.
I thought saltationism had been proposed long before Gould and Eldrege. As you say, it is often confused with puntuated equilibria, but it is incorrect to attribute theories of the former to Gould and Eldrege. Saltationism is no longer considered to be a viable theory, so I guess you could say it has been heavily discredited. However, the same is not true of punctuated equilibria; though it certainly is heavily debated.

I personally don't see any resemblence of STP's perpective to punctuated equilibria, though it certainly is true that some creationists are fond of latching on to Gould quotes taken out of context as evidence that evolutionary theory is hopelessely flawed (no one here has done that).

Rob :)

reph

09-25-2005, 09:39 PM

I believe that in Book, Razor, Pendulum, Mac, pendulum beats razor, so I win.
In that same series, Mac beats pendulum, so guess who really wins?

ResearchGuy

09-25-2005, 09:45 PM

... I can sit down with both the KJV and the NAS and decide which presents a clearer message, largely from a more accurate translation of the Hebrew into English.
...
Sometime you might want to look into the Everett Fox translation of the Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses (The Schocken Bible, Volume 1). Not only is it an illuminating translation, but the book (at least in the 1995 hardbound edition I have) is gorgeous--gold leaf and all.

By the way, what others have translated as "firmament" Fox translates as "dome," with a note explaining that the Hebrew word raki'a is "literally a beaten sheet of metal."

--Ken

reph

09-25-2005, 09:54 PM

I read "in the day" as meaning "in the time," as this was a popular usage of the phrase back "in the day."
All right, on this reading, Gen. 2 doesn't contradict Gen. 1 in that detail. But then I have to wonder what sense of "day" applies to the six days of creation in Gen. 1.

Chapter 2 merely expounds and expands upon topics covered in Chapter 1. Just because they aren't discussed in the same order as Chap 1 doesn't mean the order of creation changed.
The two chapters describe different orders. It isn't plausible to regard them as the same order when Gen. 2 says why God created animals: to keep Adam company. I made this point in an earlier post. Your response doesn't explain away the contradiction.

Anyway, why are we arguing about Genesis? It's a religious document, not a scientific one. Our topic was biology.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 10:02 PM

Yet many biblical scholars believe an order was assigned in chapter two. See my post.

I thing we're talking about two different things here, with regard to your post but I understand what you're saying.
There are also many scholars who believe the opposite, that there was no order assigned in Chapter 2.
Quite a conundrum.

reph

09-25-2005, 10:04 PM

New species caused by mutations? I can't wait to delve into this one!
Please elaborate. I'm genuinely interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion here.
I can't believe you've had a scientific education without being exposed to this idea. A new species arises from the accumulation of many mutations in an existing species over a long time. How else do you think all these birds and mammals could have got here after the dinosaurs were decimated?

ResearchGuy

09-25-2005, 10:19 PM

...Chapter 2 merely expounds and expands upon topics covered in Chapter 1. ...
No, the myth in Chapter 2 is a different one from that in Chapter 1. They are incompatible, despite attempts to gloss over the contradictions.

Some folks will find http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html of related interest. Ditto http://www.answers.com/topic/documentary-hypothesis.

The most detailed and unusual analysis I have seen of the mythic origins of the Genesis stories is by Gary Greenberg, in 101 Myths of the Bible. He traces various stories and references to Egyptian mythology, and some to Sumerian myths, which are more familiarly cited as sources for some of the stories.

A classic popular examination of the sources and editing of the Pentateuch is Richard E. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible. I read that years ago, and need to find my copy and reread it.

FWIW.

--Ken

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 10:32 PM

Sometime you might want to look into the Everett Fox translation of the Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses (The Schocken Bible, Volume 1). Not only is it an illuminating translation, but the book (at least in the 1995 hardbound edition I have) is gorgeous--gold leaf and all.

By the way, what others have translated as "firmament" Fox translates as "dome," with a note explaining that the Hebrew word raki'a is "literally a beaten sheet of metal."

--Ken

I'm not familiar with Fox's translation of the Pentateuch but I'm always on the lookout for an interesting read. I'll look into it.

As for the translation, here's Strong's presentation:

7549 raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554 (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=7554); properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament. 7554 raqa` raw-kah' a primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal):--beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
7555 riqqua` rik-koo'-ah from 7554 (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=7554); beaten out, i.e. a (metallic) plate:--broad.

Encarta defines the word firmament as simply "sky"
Dictionary.com also defines it as "the region of the air; the skies; the heavens
Both of these would be consistent with Strong's definition.

Fox's translation may be considering "raqa" instead of "raqiya". The similarities are close but the meanings are strikingly different.

I'm no biblical scholar (I freely admit) but "an expanse" or "sky" seems to fit within the context of the verse, whereas "dome" or "beaten sheet of metal" does not.

sellthepharm

09-25-2005, 10:50 PM

I can't believe you've had a scientific education without being exposed to this idea. A new species arises from the accumulation of many mutations in an existing species over a long time. How else do you think all these birds and mammals could have got here after the dinosaurs were decimated?

Reph, I never said I wasn't exposed to the idea. Quite to the contrary, in fact. I remember many discussions with various professors (some heated) on this exact subject which, in hindsight, could have posed a potential problem as far as receiving a passing grade! Luckily for me it didn't.

Ah, mutations. The holy grail for evolutionists and the magic bullet they are relying on to explain the various species. From the outset here, Reph, we should both acknowledge that this discussion will most likely fail in changing each other's mind. For every argument you present I will most likely be able to present a counter-argument, and vice versa.
But this study of mutations with regard to evolution is a fascinating one. Genetics was always a favorite of mine, due in large part to the hands-on applications and observable results in a relatively short period of time (thank you Drosophila).

I'll let you go first, though. Present your argument for mutations accumulating and resulting in new species. (Please don't take it wrong when I say I'm laughing when I write that last sentence. I'm not laughing at you; I'm laughing at the argument.)

But, like I said, you go first. After all, it IS Sunday. I've got a lot of football to watch! (you thought I was going to say something else, didn't you?) http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

reph

09-25-2005, 11:07 PM

From the outset here, Reph, we should both acknowledge that this discussion will most likely fail in changing each other's mind. For every argument you present I will most likely be able to present a counter-argument, and vice versa.
In an intellectually honest exchange, the real test isn't who gets the last word; it's which set of arguments holds up better. I have no incentive to use my time to summarize scientific knowledge if you're going to claim that any counterargument at all suffices to refute it. And I wouldn't expect to see better counterarguments from you on this issue than I saw in defense of the supposed consistency of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

The information on evolution of new species is in print all over the place. If you didn't believe your professors, you wouldn't believe me, either.

It's up to you to explain how the birds and mammals got here if not by accumulation of mutations.

Do you remember saying:
New species caused by mutations?...
Please elaborate. I'm genuinely interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion here.
That post implied an openness to other people's opinions that's absent from your later statement about counterarguments. I have to conclude that being "genuinely interested" means something different to you and to me.

ResearchGuy

09-25-2005, 11:08 PM

...I'm no biblical scholar...
Nor am I, but Fox is -- and even the definition you quoted alludes to beaten metal sheets. "Dome" certainly seems reasonable as a translation.

Robert Alter, another distinguished scholar/translator, uses the word "vault," with this note: "The Hebrew raki'a suggests a hammered-out slab, not necessarily arched, but the English architectural term [vault] with its celestial associations created by poetic tradition is otherwise appropriate." Genesis: Translation and Commentary (W.W. Norton, 1996).

The New JPS Translation of Genesis uses the word "expanse." (That translation has God calling the result "Sky," while Alter has it as "Heavens" and Fox has God calling the dome "Heaven.")

In all of this, of course, all that anyone knew was what they could see -- what it appeared to be -- little lights plonked into some sort of overarching surface and all. All the myths could do was to try to explain to a prescientific people what they observed and experienced, explanation couched in terms of the actions of presumed supernatural beings, as there was no physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy (not as we understand it), cosmology (not as we understand it) ....

--Ken

Optimus

09-26-2005, 12:06 AM

I thought saltationism had been proposed long before Gould and Eldrege. As you say, it is often confused with puntuated equilibria, but it is incorrect to attribute theories of the former to Gould and Eldrege. Saltationism is no longer considered to be a viable theory, so I guess you could say it has been heavily discredited. However, the same is not true of punctuated equilibria; though it certainly is heavily debated.

I personally don't see any resemblence of STP's perpective to punctuated equilibria, though it certainly is true that some creationists are fond of latching on to Gould quotes taken out of context as evidence that evolutionary theory is hopelessely flawed (no one here has done that).

Rob :)

Saltationism, on the whole, was presented long before Gould and Eldrege (as far as I know). The entire idea of it, that the development of species mysteriously takes great generational leaps, is effusive and quite short on specifics. Much of Gould's work on punctuated equilibria shows implications that the punctuation may have been the result of sort of "pre-programmed" genes "activating" in certain environments due to environmental stressors...or some such notion...to cause some of these saltations (genetic spandrels).

Of course, whether this was his actual intent or not isn't clear, as he never really elaborated fully on some of his ideas, and instead spent his time quibbling with other biologists/paleontologists.

sellthepharm

09-26-2005, 12:29 AM

In an intellectually honest exchange, the real test isn't who gets the last word; it's which set of arguments holds up better. I have no incentive to use my time to summarize scientific knowledge if you're going to claim that any counterargument at all suffices to refute it.

Come on, Reph. I've never said I had to have the last word. Not at all.
And I also never said that I would claim any counterargument would refute the evidence you present. I believe there is an argument against the theory of new species arising from accumulated mutations. There is evidence against this theory, as you put it, "all over the place", both in print and on the Net.

It's up to you to explain how the birds and mammals got here if not by accumulation of mutations.

Wrong. The onus here is on you to explain how mutations account for the rise of new species, or at least I thought that was where this discussion was headed. You brought it up.

That post implied an openness to other people's opinions that's absent from your later statement about counterarguments. I have to conclude that being "genuinely interested" means something different to you and to me.

Reph, I'm always open to others' opinions, yours included. My point was that there are serious discussions and articles from noted experts on both sides of the issue (mutations).
And I am genuinely interested in your argument in this matter. But just don't expect me to take your "summary of scientific knowledge" as gospel (no pun intended) just because you say it is.

FolkloreFanatic

09-26-2005, 01:42 AM

Of course, the problem with even having an argument here implies that intelligent design and/or creationism have scientific evidence to provide a counter-argument. We don't question the Theory of Gravity, theory or not, because the overwhelming evidence for it is right in front of our faces. The entire discussion implies that the scientific community is divided over the issue. It isn't. The American people are, which is distressing enough in itself, but implying that there is a large group of credible scientists with impartially documented evidence of a supreme being guiding the extinction of the dinosaurs is hot air.

Since theories, by definition, have to possess some way to be falsified, and there is no way to falsify or prove divine intervention at this time, matters of faith have no place in research labs, classrooms or biology textbooks. There is a place for intelligent design to be taught in schools: in a philosophy or comparative religion class.

I'm an evangelical Christian, and frankly, it makes me sick to watch this invasion of ignorance into our public schools. Maybe if people were forced to learn about many different belief systems, we might have more religious tolerance. Of course, with parents of *college kids* complaining about reading the Koran in a lit survey course, I can hardly see that happening.

Remember: according to the Bible, God gave us brains along with everything else.

Pat~

09-26-2005, 01:54 AM

All right, on this reading, Gen. 2 doesn't contradict Gen. 1 in that detail. But then I have to wonder what sense of "day" applies to the six days of creation in Gen. 1.

The two chapters describe different orders. It isn't plausible to regard them as the same order when Gen. 2 says why God created animals: to keep Adam company. I made this point in an earlier post. Your response doesn't explain away the contradiction.

I don't see anywhere in Gen. 2 an explanation as to why God created animals. Rather, I see Him creating Eve to keep Adam company, because the animals previously created didn't 'fill the bill.' I think it might be clearer if you read a bit further in Genesis 2:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

(Here GOD realizes it's not good for man to be alone; He intends to create a human companion, but first he parades the animals which He had already created in front of Adam so he can see his need, too--that while these previously created beings are wonderful, none are 'suitable'--none are like him. Verse 19 is not a subsequent creation of the animals, but simply reviews God's creation of the animals before mentioning His bringing them before Adam...note the past tense "had created".) In naming them Adam is given dominion over them while at the same time realizing none are a 'suitable helper' for him. Then God proceeds with His plan to create the suitable helper...Eve.

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

Aconite

09-26-2005, 03:24 AM

No Aconite, Intelligent Design is a different argument.
Yet quite similar to what you're presenting: that there is a force that deliberately and consciously selects for certain traits. That's not natural selection; natural selection is a mindless process, without will or conscious direction. It does act on a population, but that does not make it sentient or directed.

And I still say you're mistaking result for cause. Natural selection/survival of the fittest is a result of a population or species predetermined genetic makeup. Those creatures most suited to survive in a particular environment will reproduce and pass on genetic information. But natural selection did not cause them to survive.
But it did. They have those genes in the first place because natural selection has been taking place since the species began (before that, in fact. If those Arctic cats remain separated from other cats for long enough, their genes will eventually be so different from other cats' that they will become a new species). It doesn't start happening and stop happening; it's a continually ongoing process. It's what led to their having those genes in the first place, and what leads to the survivors having the genes they do. I am, again, flatly astounded that you, who claim to be studying science in depth, keep missing these basic points.

reph

09-26-2005, 03:49 AM

I don't see anywhere in Gen. 2 an explanation as to why God created animals. Rather, I see Him creating Eve to keep Adam company, because the animals previously created didn't 'fill the bill.'
Yes, exactly. The animals didn't qualify as partners for Adam, so God executed a second idea instead: a woman. Implication: God thought at first that an animal might do.

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

(Here GOD realizes it's not good for man to be alone; He intends to create a human companion...

Verse 18 doesn't say he intends to create a human companion.

but first he parades the animals which He had already created in front of Adam so he can see his need, too--that while these previously created beings are wonderful, none are 'suitable'--none are like him.
"So he can see his need, too": Where are you getting this information about God's purpose in bringing the animals to Adam? Verse 19 says only that God brought them to him to be named.

Verse 19 is not a subsequent creation of the animals, but simply reviews God's creation of the animals before mentioning His bringing them before Adam...note the past tense "had created".)
The KJV doesn't have the past perfect tense. It says "19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found any help meet for him." Chapter 2 hasn't mentioned a creation of animals up to this point. (Don't tell me it relies on the creation of animals in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 has God creating plants and a man all over again. Each chapter is a separate version of the creation story.) Reading between the lines, but not awfully far from them, I construe the last clause in v. 20 as meaning that Adam, God, or both had hoped that one of the animals would do as Adam's companion (partner, helper, spouse).

In naming them Adam is given dominion over them while at the same time realizing none are a 'suitable helper' for him.
Aha! So Adam was scanning the animals to select a helper.

reph

09-26-2005, 04:06 AM

I believe there is an argument against the theory of new species arising from accumulated mutations. There is evidence against this theory, as you put it, "all over the place", both in print and on the Net.
If you know about the evidence against the theory, you must also know what the theory says. You don't need me to recapitulate it for you.

I devoted much time to explaining what evolutionists mean by "natural selection" because you were arguing against what you think they say. I thought your understanding of their meaning was subtly different from their real meaning, and I tried to articulate the difference. I've seen no sign that any of my efforts worked. What's the point of a discussion if nobody learns anything?

The onus here is on you to explain how mutations account for the rise of new species, or at least I thought that was where this discussion was headed.
See above. The explanation is well known. If you have a competing explanation, out with it. New species come from somewhere. If not from old species, then where?

ResearchGuy

09-26-2005, 04:20 AM

...What's the point of a discussion if nobody learns anything?...

Simple: to tie you in knots of frustration trying to respond to an expert application of The Argument From Ignorance. That argument goes like this: "I do not understand how such-and-such can be true, so therefore it cannot be true." A response that the explanation has been published repeatedly in books and elsewhere receives the riposte: "AHA! I knew you could not explain it! I am not falling for your tired old argument that the answer is to be found somewhere else!" So, notwithstanding that the essense has been settled science for a century+, worked out and documented in ever more detail and with ever more examples, and via the discovery and analysis of DNA, The Argument From Ignorance trumps all by simply retreating into continuing Ignorance while (and this is truly devious!) possibly even arguing that "I Already Know All That 'Cause I Took Classes In College And I Still Have The Textbooks And I Still Say It Cannot Be True so THERE."

It really is a perfect Rope-a-Dope, ever insisting that you have to write the whole textbook--and document every line of it--right here on the message board or ignorance wins every round. (The Argument from Ignorance still wins by remaining unpersuaded. There is always another nit to pick.)

It is a waste of time to attempt to educate such folks.

--Ken

sellthepharm

09-26-2005, 04:39 AM

I devoted much time to explaining what evolutionists mean by "natural selection" because you were arguing against what you think they say. I thought your understanding of their meaning was subtly different from their real meaning, and I tried to articulate the difference. I've seen no sign that any of my efforts worked. What's the point of a discussion if nobody learns anything?

Reph, I have never denied the existence of natural selection/survival of the fittest (not that you said I have). I acknowledge the fact that species with favorable genetic characteristics relative to a certain environment will thrive and reproduce while those with unfavorable genetic characteristics will not survive. This is undeniable and observable in nature. I have maintained this viewpoint from the beginning of this discussion.
If you want to say evolution within a species or population is nothing more than a survival ( the microevolution argument?) of the fittest argument as defined above then, ok, we agree. We're arguing over nothing more than the definition of evolution.

But when you posit the theory that this 'evolution' crosses species and new species arise, whether by mutations or some other mechanism, then we differ in opinion.

See above. The explanation is well known. If you have a competing explanation, out with it. New species come from somewhere. If not from old species, then where?

Reph, my question to you was how do you defend the argument that mutations account for the rise of new species. Whether or not I have a competing argument for where new species come from is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your saying "the explanation is well known" isn't much of an argument.

reph

09-26-2005, 04:59 AM

Reph, my question to you was how do you defend the argument that mutations account for the rise of new species. Whether or not I have a competing argument for where new species come from is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your saying "the explanation is well known" isn't much of an argument.
The argument (argument?!)that mutations account for the rise of new species needs no defense. It's the only credible explanation for new species out there.

Whether or not you have a competing explanation for where new species come from certainly is relevant. Because antievolutionists have no evidence for whatever they say produced the plant and animal kingdoms in their current state, they concentrate on finding flaws, real or imagined, in evolutionary theory. I don't doubt for a minute that if I were to review evolution for you– and it would be a review; you had all this stuff in college – you'd come back with some form of "No." Not even "That's interesting" or "I don't understand": just "No." As I said earlier, there's no incentive for me to take the trouble to do that.

I ask again: what good is a discussion if nobody learns anything? Do you have a better answer than the one Ken gave? Or has he pretty much got it?

sellthepharm

09-26-2005, 05:00 AM

Simple: to tie you in knots of frustration trying to respond to an expert application of The Argument From Ignorance. That argument goes like this: "I do not understand how such-and-such can be true, so therefore it cannot be true." A response that the explanation has been published repeatedly in books and elsewhere receives the riposte: "AHA! I knew you could not explain it! I am not falling for your tired old argument that the answer is to be found somewhere else!" So, notwithstanding that the essense has been settled science for a century+, worked out and documented in ever more detail and with ever more examples, and via the discovery and analysis of DNA, The Argument From Ignorance trumps all by simply retreating into continuing Ignorance while (and this is truly devious!) possibly even arguing that "I Already Know All That 'Cause I Took Classes In College And I Still Have The Textbooks And I Still Say It Cannot Be True so THERE."

It really is a perfect Rope-a-Dope, ever insisting that you have to write the whole textbook--and document every line of it--right here on the message board or ignorance wins every round. (The Argument from Ignorance still wins by remaining unpersuaded. There is always another nit to pick.)

It is a waste of time to attempt to educate such folks.

--Ken

You're right of course, Ken, but you forgot to mention that, when presented with an argument that calls into question a particular position on a given subject, said people will often descend into name-calling, claims of ignorance on their part, and other forms of general playground behavior that most children outgrow by the sixth grade.

If this is the direction this thread is headed then I suggest we shake hands and part ways. Reph, Aconite, Optimus, I appreciate your civil discourse.
I will be happy to take it up another time when we all learn our respective manners.

Birol

09-26-2005, 05:13 AM

I have not seen any indication that this thread is descending into name-calling or flaming. The discussion has been completely civil and intellectually stimulating. Just remember, it is unlikely you will persuade any of the active participants but you may be educating lurkers.

Please continue.

ResearchGuy

09-26-2005, 05:38 AM

These folks have been fighting this battle for years: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

But then, so have the creationists...

Absolutely nothing whatsoever new will appear here on this issue. It has all been said before, again and again and again and again, with (I venture to surmise) never a single mind changed.

--Ken

P.S. I have been wondering, are hyenas, jackals, grizzly bears, polar bears, and wolverines "clean" or "unclean" animals? Hence, how many pairs (according to one version of the story -- in the other it was one pair apiece, whether clean or unclean) were on the Ark? How did they and the rest of the predators get along with the other beasties? And for that matter, how was the feeding managed for the elephants (Indian and African species), wooly mammoths, etc. (they eat, or ate, a lot) and so on, and what provisions were made for cleaning up their mountainous piles of excrement? How did the animals unique to Australia and other island ecologies get to the Ark? And how did they get back to where they belong? Or were they all everywhere before the Flood, and only afterwards parcelled out in a manner that only looked as though they had evolved from separated populations? So much to wonder about ...

Peggy

09-26-2005, 05:59 AM

As Reph has pointed out, there really is no scientific controversy as to whether mutations are involved in the creation of new species. Changes in the genome can be as small as the change of a single base pair, or as great as gene duplication or the rearrangement of chromosomes. All of these types of changes, particularly if multiple changes accumulate over time, can ultimately lead to new species. If you took a biology course in college, I'm sure this was covered in detail. If you didn't "buy it" then, I doubt you can be convinced by a brief explanation here.

Just remember, it is unlikely you will persuade any of the active participants but you may be educating lurkers.
For the "learning lurkers": Here is an overview of speciation (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_40) from the UC Berkeley "Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01)" site (this explains how genetic variants can split off from their parent populations - and has cute drawings of fruit flies in love). It also describes the role of mutations (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18).

At a slightly more advanced level, here are some sections of the standard college biology textbook "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (by Alberts) that discuss mutations and evolution (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Books&cmd=search&doptcmdl=DocSum&term=evolution+mutations+AND+mboc4%5Bbook%5D).

There is also a nice article on Genetics and the origin of bird species (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/15/7768) (Grant and Grant, PNAS 94: 7768 (1997)). It describes a scenario in which a single mutation could lead to a new species.

Peggy

09-26-2005, 06:13 AM

And for that matter, how was the feeding managed for the elephants (Indian and African species), wooly mammoths, etc. (they eat, or ate, a lot) and so on, and what provisions were made for cleaning up their mountainous piles of excrement?
That's easy - John Wilkins published the solution (http://kelty.rice.edu/375/lectures/wilkins0331.html#) back in 1668 (see the Noah's Ark links at the bottom of page).

However, it's not clear how good his solution is, since he forgot to include the dinosaurs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp) in his calculations.

reph

09-26-2005, 06:13 AM

Reph, my question to you was how do you defend the argument that mutations account for the rise of new species.
And another thing: You can't reasonably expect me to want to present the case for mutations after you've announced that you're laughing at the arguments on that side (further evidence, incidentally, that you already know what they are and that you need me to state them about as much as a barber needs to be told how to distinguish scissors from a comb).

When I elaborated on the concept of natural selection because I thought you had it a bit wrong, I occupied the situation of a fish swimming in a lake and seeing something that looks an awful lot like a tasty worm. This time, however, what the fish sees is a poor imitation of a worm, done in molded plastic, with a flashing sign attached that says This Is Not a Real Worm.

First you say you're genuinely interested in others' opinions on the origin of new species. Then you say you laugh at the arguments. It doesn't make sense. Doesn't inconsistency bother you on some intellectual or moral level?

And another other thing: I asked first. My question to you was, how do you account for the rise of birds and mammals after the dinosaurs were decimated?

Well?

robeiae

09-26-2005, 07:03 AM

And another other thing: I asked first. My question to you was, how do you account for the rise of birds and mammals after the dinosaurs were decimated?

Well?
Vitamins?

Rob :)

Epicman

09-26-2005, 09:28 AM

I decided to sit back a few days and watch what would happen in this thread I started. The results are illuminating...

While most of you have remained civil for the most part - Thank You - I still see the same thing over and over and over (I think one of you noted this too.)

The 'Evolutionists' almost always resort to the "I'm smarter than you" attitude and follow it up with stated or linked to technical jargon that often has little to do with the topic or is just another opinion by someone else.

The 'Creationists' are a mixture of folks who range from those with advanced degrees (a few) to those with between high school to basic college degrees with most of those degrees coming from the non-science areas of study. Some of these also can get to a "Holier than thou" attitude. The thing that most of you miss is that most from this section are trying to gain some knowledge on the subject - I suspect most of the lurkers are from this side.

Like some of you pointed out - no one side will win or lose here. Most likely it will degenerate into a child-like slugging match and noone will change because of it.

This is why I wrote "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined." I am a scientist who also happens to be a born again Christian. I understand the merits of the THEORY of Evolution and have a great faith in The Word also. A struggle? Contradictions? Opposing viewpoints? You bet! What do I do?

I have witnessed many students, colleagues, professors, etc. have this same struggle between what their faith and science says. I was not content to leave it as it was - there HAS TO BE AN EQUITABLE ANSWER!

After devoting years of research to the Creation/Evolution debate I settled the issues in my own mind and decided to share those solutions with others. Yes my work has been reviewed and edited by over 40 individuals from Christians, Atheists, Scientists, high school students, Clergy, and regular Joes. Why did I not submit to scientific journals for a true peer review? Exactly because of what I believe are the roots of this debate: Mistranslation and Misconception.

Ponder this example: (I did a survey on one college campus and one high school campus on this subject)

How many have seen the commercial where the Asian guy clones himself and has all these same-age-clones doing his work and delivering breakfast to his wife in bed? How many believe creating same-age clones with the same personalities and qualities as the original is possible? You should be very surprised to learn that just over 80% from BOTH areas I surveyed believe the idea the commercial conveys! Why? Most of the general public believe the above misconception because:
1) When Dolly the sheep was cloned the scientist published his work and findings in a scientific journal using the very technical language of science.
2) Journalists, qualified in journalism but not in science, comb through this scientific journal and mistranslate the complex language of science. They do not stop there - they also have to add the sensationalistic slants that sell the news.
3) The general public read these mistranslations which creates misconceptions which go back through the journalistic mill to churn up even more controversy - which Sells Sells Sells!
4) Some of these members of the general public take up banners and slogans which consist entirely of misconceptions and begin to champion causes that lead to the seat of our government.
5) Our elected officials, hearing all these demands of their electorate to outlaw this! ban that! and restrict this! bow to pressure and pass laws that affect funding and types of scientific research permitted.
6) The scientists scratch their heads, are frustrated, and wonder how all this got started in the first place.

The solution:

The scientists should either translate him/her self or hire out the translation of his/her research and results in PLAIN ENGLISH that can be understood by the layperson. This completely eliminates false and misleading mistranslation and the resulting misconceptions that cause these debates in the first place.

This is the reason why this scientist chose to publish his results geared for a "Universal Understanding in Plain English" in "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined."

The "Evolutionists" can relax: I agree with, support, have found scientific support, and Biblical support for the vast majority of evolutionary theory.

The "Creationists" may relax also: I agree with, support, and have found scientific support for the entirety of the Biblical Creation event.

The difference in my approach to the debate is that I am in the middle: a Christian and a scientist (Crevolutionist?) and I present my ideas in layperson terminology.

Before you start trying to browbeat me ponder the following:

Have you read my scientific theories on ID and Human Evolution?
Do you have a fresh new approach to this debate or do you use the same old methods that have proven over and over and over again to be ineffective?

And one more point:

ID theory - at least mine - is NOT a way to get God in the side door of our schools. A politically neutral statement of my ID theories allows one to "plug in" their version of the intelligence behind the design: God, Buddha, Allah, a "force", Sam the Plumber, or nothing at all - if that is what they believe.

And back to the start of this thread I do challenge anyone - Nobel Prize winner or not - who would state that ANY theory is above reproach, criticism, or replacement by a better idea. This people IS PROGRESS.

The Point and the question here is:

If Creationists could be brought to the point of agreeing with most of evolutionary theory - and still hold true to their faith - how far ahead would all of us be? On the other side: If Evolutionists were provided scientific support for the Biblical Creation event how many would begin to ponder their position of looking at the Bible as just a collection of fairy tales?

Optimus

09-26-2005, 09:54 AM

If Creationists could be brought to the point of agreeing with most of evolutionary theory - and still hold true to their faith - how far ahead would all of us be?

I'm already there.

:)

Great post, btw. I'd be very interested in getting a copy of your book, too.

Epicman

09-26-2005, 12:01 PM

Thank You Optimus for your comment. There are some scientifically educated Christians who have settled the issue I am sure - but none who shared their solutions as I have. My intended audience is very broad: Those with faith who are not scientifically inclined, those who have faith and a science-based education but are stuck in the middle, those who have no religious conviction with or without a science-based education - just about everyone as you can see. I am not trying to 'preach the Word' or 'save your soul' I only provide Biblical support along with scientific support to illustrate to those of faith that a joining of the sides is possible - while staying true to your faith.

For those interested in "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined" the retail price is $13.95.

On Bookfinder4u.com the lowest listed price is one penny. When you click that link - part of Ebay - it will display that the title can't be found. When I inquired because I definitely wanted to purchase massive quantities of my 2 week old book for a penny apiece they replied that they had run out of stock. I asked if there was any way I could enter my advanced order for the next 1,000 copies at a penny apiece they said there was no way to do that.

Anyway - the lowest REAL price is currently $13.95 at my web site (www.ComeTogetherBooks.com (http://www.cometogetherbooks.com/)) - that is with FREE shipping! (some others are a little less but when you add shipping it is more)

But I will go one better for the folks at Absolute Write:

25% off retail with FREE USPS media mail shipping (5-7 days)
Upon request I will also sign and number your copy (request it in your e-mail)
Please note: I can only offer this to US addresses. If you are outside the US email glenn@cometogetherbooks.com with your shipping address and we will figure the shipping rates, subtract what I'd pay for US shipments and you pay the balance plus the $10.46 - fair enough?

Two ways to order at this price:
#1
Simply send a check or money order for $10.46 payable to David Hamilton (my accountant and my brother) and mail it to:

Come Together Books
525 Wild Wind Rd.
Edmond, OK 73003

Send an e-mail to glenn@cometogetherbooks.com once you mail your check or money order with your name and shipping address so we can get a jump on processing your order.
We will ship orders paid by money order the next business day after receipt and orders paid by check three business days after receipt. If you send me a rubber check you will be responsible for the fees they charge me ($20 fee) It's only $10.46 so keep it honest.

#2
Order by PayPal through my site with a credit card http://www.cometogetherbooks.com/page5.html
Send an e-mail to glenn@cometogetherbooks.com after ordering with your full name and shipping address you used at PayPal along with the fact you saw this at Absolute Write and I will enclose a refund of $3.49 with your shipment which will be shipped the next business day after receipt of your order (don't forget to send that e-mail for the partial refund!)

How do you know I am real and the offer is real?

1) Go to Google.com and type: "Come Together Books" You must type in the "Quotation marks" too. Look at the third or fourth result that takes you to "The EDMOND SUN Online" and you will see my pic and article about the book.

2) Go to Google.com and type: "Glenn S. Hamilton" You will find the same result along with a few spread out mentions of press releases. (along with a lot about a judge in Ohio with my name - it's not me)

3) Go to Amazon.com and type: 190536329X in the search box - thats the ISBN of my book. You can see it is real. If I screw you out of your money you can always go to Amazon and trash me and my book in the review section. (Please everyone stay mature and professional and don't go there and trash me or my book just because you may disagree with what I say here - keep it honest and don't post a review unless you've read my book. Once you have read it you may comment as you wish.) I only mention the review thing because I have witnessed how mean and spiteful some folks can be - I will not mention any names but when I mentioned how many views a particular thread was getting and the reason why I thought the thread was getting so many views one or more persons immediately voted a lowered star rating. While it didn't change anything it was mean and spiteful just the same.

4) Search my other posts here and you will see that I went through a lot of crap just to screw a few people out of a few dollars.

5) The address above also happens to be my home address so you can send a thug to beat me up if your book doesn't arrive.:box:

6) If that isn't enough call me (405)802-9345 But PLEASE don't call to debate views on evolution/Creation/ID as we can do that here. You may call to ask me questions about ordering or shipping or if your order is really late in getting to you. I am also not going to 'read' you my book over the phone - we writers do have to earn a living too. If you get my voice mail it is because I am busy - please leave a message with name, number, and question and I will return your call.

My return policy is simple:
If your book arrives damaged I will send another. Just file the form with the USPS and send an e-mail to glenn@cometogetherbooks.com with your name and shipping address.

sellthepharm

09-26-2005, 05:26 PM

Richard

09-26-2005, 05:29 PM

I still want to know how it all ties into Uranus' severed testicle.

NeuroFizz

09-26-2005, 06:10 PM

DaveKuzminski

09-26-2005, 06:26 PM

There's an interesting article online now about ID that is worth reading. It's at URL http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600/.

Also, why doesn't anyone look beyond the idea of ID to ask just where the ID came from if it's allegedly behind life as we know it? After all, if ID is to be successful as a theory, then isn't it appropriate for it to explain where the intelligent designer came from, too?

Aconite

09-26-2005, 06:53 PM

And back to the start of this thread I do challenge anyone - Nobel Prize winner or not - who would state that ANY theory is above reproach, criticism, or replacement by a better idea. This people IS PROGRESS.
The Nobel Prize winners were NOT stating that evolution is above question or testing, Epicman. Several people have pointed that out to you. You persist in misunderstanding, because doing so suits your purpose better than examining what they actually said. This is intellectually dishonest, and should be beneath you.

NeuroFizz

09-26-2005, 07:35 PM

The Nobel Prize winners were NOT stating that evolution is above question or testing, Epicman. Several people have pointed that out to you. You persist in misunderstanding, because doing so suits your purpose better than examining what they actually said. This is intellectually dishonest, and should be beneath you.

There are few theories in Biology that have been so thoroughly debated and tested (scientifically), and for which a significant amount of research funds continue to be spent for additional testing, directly or indirectly.

Epicman

09-26-2005, 08:07 PM

First to Dave: We cannot identify the intelligence without stepping on and attempting to disprove one's religion. That is not productive at all. In fact that is the very reason for the division that exists now. Think of in terms of the universiality of ID theory when you only carry it to the point that I have: EVERYONE can agree with the theory and plug in their own version of who or what the intelligence was behind it.

Aconite: you are correct: intellectual dishonesty is below me and I would NEVER resort to it. I showed by quoting the letter directly the writer's direct words that hold evolutionary theory above reproach. You illustrated through an interpretation and personal opinion why you believe "religious-based propaganda" was their target. None of you who have 'pointed that out to me' have quoted the letter to support your point. The further support for this lies with the fact that, once we located the actual text of the letter, everyone dropped the issue. Once again, for your benefit Aconite, the EXACT QUOTE from the letter that 38 Nobel Prize winners signed:

Second paragraph last sentence:
"We are also concerned by the Board’s recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution."

What does this quotation say to you Aconite and anyone else reading it? They do not want standards recommended or adopted that criticize evolution. Is that a misinterpretation? Did I take it out of context? I don't think so because the "We are also..." introduction to the statement sets it apart from any other statement in the letter. If you choose to continue the letter debate PLEASE quote the letter as I have done then allow everyone to see the support of your viewpoint just as I have done.

So let's change our course from one of trying to prove intellectual dishonesty to one of providing actual support for our statements. Again - this is yet another example of why this debate continues and only goes in circles. I specifically state that I and my book supports the vast majority of evolutionary theory. (The small part that I do not support I also show scientific refute for.) My fresh approach is this: I support the vast majority of evolutionary theory and I do so both scientifically AND Biblically and in layperson terminology. Secondly I support the entirety of the Biblical Creation event and again, I do so both scientifically AND Biblically and in layperson terminology.

What EXACTLY is the harm in this? Why EXACTLY and in layperson terminology would either side be against such a proposal? In fact, since most of us here including the lurkers are either writers or interested in the field, you understand the nature of my generous offer previously in this thread. I would send them free if I could afford to do so - I did send a free copy to each of the Kansas State Board of Education members. I do have to earn a living too as writing is my career. But I will gladly give up the 25% and the cost of a mailer and postage (just over $2) just so anyone who wants to here - lurkers too - can read and critique my theories.

Kasey Mackenzie

09-26-2005, 08:14 PM

With all due respect, there is a place on this board for personal advertisements of your own books. I appreciate that you "have to make a living" and that there are people here who may very well be interested in reading your book, but I don't really think what amounts to a humongous advertisement for your book is appropriate in this thread. Perhaps a simple mention of the link at the bottom of your signature would be more appropriate. Or PMing the interested people with more info. Or simply including a few of your particular arguments to support your own position regarding this topic.

Then again, maybe it's just me.

robeiae

09-26-2005, 08:30 PM

Again - this is yet another example of why this debate continues and only goes in circles. I specifically state that I and my book supports the vast majority of evolutionary theory. (The small part that I do not support I also show scientific refute for.) My fresh approach is this: I support the vast majority of evolutionary theory and I do so both scientifically AND Biblically and in layperson terminology. Secondly I support the entirety of the Biblical Creation event and again, I do so both scientifically AND Biblically and in layperson terminology.

What EXACTLY is the harm in this? Why EXACTLY and in layperson terminology would either side be against such a proposal?
Since you asked:

1) As a Christian and a reasonably intelligent person, I don't see any value with regard to my faith of seeking scientific evidence/justification for it. In fact, seeking such evidence suggests to me a real lack of faith.

2) This kind of endeavor, IMO, puts too much emphasis on the OT; it is in the NT that the message of Christ is found.

3) While I think that the "separation of Church and State" is overstated and misunderstood in many respects, this is not one of them. The reconcilliation of science and faith is not properly the concern of State-supported educational systems.

4) Scientific inquiry is properly characterized by specific methodolgies and patterns of thought that should be taught so those with the most capable minds can advance such inquiries. The introduction of this kind of material into science courses will not facillitate this process and will turn some minds away from open exploration of old fields and new.

5) IMO, Evolution is not the great bugaboo many fundamnetalists see it to be; it never has been.

Rob :)

NeuroFizz

09-26-2005, 08:55 PM

Second paragraph last sentence:
"We are also concerned by the Board’s recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution."

What does this quotation say to you Aconite and anyone else reading it? They do not want standards recommended or adopted that criticize evolution. Is that a misinterpretation? Did I take it out of context? I don't think so because the "We are also..." introduction to the statement sets it apart from any other statement in the letter. If you choose to continue the letter debate PLEASE quote the letter as I have done then allow everyone to see the support of your viewpoint just as I have done.

Hi, Glenn

Yes, I'm afraid you've taken it out of context. The statement above refers specifically to the Board's recommentation in the context of non-scientific evaluation of a scientific theory. This is evident from the preceding sentences and the following paragraph or two. These people don't object to anyone who provides solid, testable evidence against evolutionary theory (my paraphrase). The intent isn't to shut down criticism of evolution as a scientific theory.

Also, a couple of comments from my contribution from way back toward the beginning of this thread (I've been away for a few days). Please don't take this as being obnoxious. I presume you're as interested in widespread acceptance of your ideas as you are at making money by selling the book (both legitimate pursuits, by the way, so I'm not trying to slight the latter). You've listed the number of people from which you solicited comments on your book (about 30, I believe), and the questions asked. This is not what I meant by getting it reviewed. I mean subject it to the standard of anonymous peer review, where the reviewers are critically reading your ideas on the basis of common academic standards. I'm not talking about questions concerning how to improve the book, rather a nit-picking evaluation of the content, the ideas, and the evidence-based conclusions. This is what is necessary for your book to go mainstream as a real scientific theory. I've been encouraging you to do this for some time now, and my stance hasn't changed. I'm very interested in seeing how it comes out.

The topic of your book will probably put you in hotly contested debate situations. On the advice side, please, please, please don't use the "scientific jargon" argument. I know this is the reason you wrote your book, but it's a hot button--an agrument used initially by creatonists to explain why scienfitic types paid little attention to creationist views. The 'scientific jargon" argument was picked up by ID people, as a way to discredit the objectivity of opponents in this argument. Again, this is advice only, and not a specific criticism. If you play that card in an intellectual agrument on the subject, you will immediately align yourself with the less academic types on the ID/creationist side of the isle. It is an agrument of emotion in the debate of an intellectual issue.

Sorry about the cockroach sentiment. I should have been more tactful. However, the part about starting from two cockroaches is, unfortunately, a bit off the mark in terms of any evolutionary theory or permutation thereof. Again, I urge you to take great care in selecting your examples for agrument. You've already received a whiff of how charged this issue can be. If you go the full route and open your book up to proper scientific evaluation, we may all come off as declawed cats, great hissing and spitting but little else, in comparison to potential reviewers. And, believe it if you will, but that's the kind of feedback you should want more than that from the 30 people you personally selected. From serious, severe criticism, we tend to modify, and thus strengthen, our personal conslusions. You shouldn't be done tinkering with your ideas. You shouldn't consider what's in your book to be your final word. No part of science works like that.

Epicman

09-26-2005, 09:16 PM

"Since you asked:

1) As a Christian and a reasonably intelligent person, I don't see any value with regard to my faith of seeking scientific evidence/justification for it. In fact, seeking such evidence suggests to me a real lack of faith."

Are you missing the point possibly? I am not trying to reaffirm one's faith in any way. Although it is not my intended purpose what if providing scientific support for the Bible leads a non-believer to reconsider. Any Christian would wholeheartedly support that.

"2) This kind of endeavor, IMO, puts too much emphasis on the OT; it is in the NT that the message of Christ is found."

You are correct on the placement of Christ's message. That is not directly a factor in the focused purpose of my theories nor a factor in the Creation/Evolution debate. My purpose is not to preach but to get as many people as possible to ponder my ideas. Also add my above answer to #1 here.

"3) While I think that the "separation of Church and State" is overstated and misunderstood in many respects, this is not one of them. The reconcilliation of science and faith is not properly the concern of State-supported educational systems."

My book and the theories within are NOT an attempt to introduce or reinforce faith in public schools. They are an attempt to introduce theory that can be understood and accepted by those of any or no faith.

"4) Scientific inquiry is properly characterized by specific methodolgies and patterns of thought that should be taught so those with the most capable minds can advance such inquiries. The introduction of this kind of material into science courses will not facillitate this process and will turn some minds away from open exploration of old fields and new."

I am a scientist Rob who also happens to be a Christian. If you read my book you would see the specific methodologies I utilize - they are current and acceptable to the scientific community. The main difference is that I have translated the scientific language CORRECTLY into layperson terminology to avoid the misconceptions that permeate every current debate. What exactly do you mean by "The introduction of this kind of material into science courses will not facillitate this process and will turn some minds away from open exploration of old fields and new." My curricular adaptations are not quite finished and I assume - correct me if I am wrong - that you have not read my book.

"5) IMO, Evolution is not the great bugaboo many fundamnetalists see it to be; it never has been.
Rob :)"

Again - you are correct - but to the vast layperson population it is a 'bugaboo' that will never be settled until a fresh new approach is taken - like mine. These same laypersons are at the front of the line demanding laws be passed restricting the advancement of science based solely upon misconceptions. The "many fundamentalists who see it to be" will become the few - then hopefully the none.

pconsidine

09-26-2005, 09:22 PM

Quite frankly, this is a rather absurd topic to still be debating 6 pages later. If there were ever to be any consensus between people on opposing sides of the matter, it surely would have been reached sometime in the past 100-or-so years. It would also require a degree of empathy that will never be found in either side.

I suppose this debate will have to infect every board I visit. Isn't there a way we can just cross-reference them? Or better yet, just post them all to one big universal FAQ somewhere and link to it when we feel like stirring up trouble.

sellthepharm

09-26-2005, 09:22 PM

Sorry for my disappearance--I have to swipe minutes to get on here and contribute. This thread has exploded since my last visit, so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, however, in reading Sellthepharm's (sorry if I spelled it wrong) threads, something slapped me in the head, and I had to go back to pull it out. In contribution #59, #69, and #70, he/she provided a key phrase that is critical in recognizing how he/she can accept the basics of natural selection, but can't accept genetic mutations in any form. The reference is to "predetermined genomes" in all three contributions. Now, anyone who believes in predetermined genomes probably can not accept or acknowledge any form of genetic mutation. The two would be mutually exclusive. If so, that person rejects the substantial documentation on genetic recombination, and to keep it in the medical sphere, things like DNA methylation, which causes mutation of target cytosine to thymine in 30% of inherited diseases and cancers. And this latter one is just one type of point mutation.

So, does the agrument revolve around the predetermination, and therefore rigidity of genomes? Is so, we'll have to throw out, as misdirected and worthless, generations of work in genetics, cell biology and molecular biology.

You're right, of course, Neurofizz. 'Predetermined genome' was a poor choice of words and gives an implication that is unrelated to this discussion and I apologize if it caused any confusion. I'm surprised this wasn't pointed out earlier.

Perhaps 'a specific genome as related to a species' or 'a genome specific to a certain species', as in the feline species or the canine species, comes closer to the mark. Again, you're right. 'Predetermined genome' infers that there is no room for mutation and the two are mutually exclusive, which was never my position at all. There is wondrous variety within a species and the presence of mutations is undeniable therefore precluding, as you aptly put it, the rigidity of a genome with a species.

So the argument here is not about predetermination at all. My differing opinion is in the accumulation of genetic mutations causing the rise of new species from older species. I simply maintain that there is a sufficient body of plausible evidence that calls into question the validity of that argument. Nothing more.

And Reph, I owe you an apology. My 'laughing' comment in an earlier post was inexcusable. It was never my intention to belittle or ridicule your opinions and that post gives just that implication.

robeiae

09-26-2005, 09:43 PM

Are you missing the point possibly? I am not trying to reaffirm one's faith in any way. Although it is not my intended purpose what if providing scientific support for the Bible leads a non-believer to reconsider. Any Christian would wholeheartedly support that.
Incorrect; I would prefer non-believers to find Christ through His meassage, not from a textbook.

You are correct on the placement of Christ's message. That is not directly a factor in the focused purpose of my theories nor a factor in the Creation/Evolution debate. My purpose is not to preach but to get as many people as possible to ponder my ideas. Also add my above answer to #1 here.
You miss the point; what you are doing here is leading people away from Christ, albeit unintentionally, by focusing on the least-important elements of the Bible.

My book and the theories within are NOT an attempt to introduce or reinforce faith in public schools. They are an attempt to introduce theory that can be understood and accepted by those of any or no faith.
Your "intent" is irrelevent. What is important are the consequnces of this introduction.

I am a scientist Rob who also happens to be a Christian. If you read my book you would see the specific methodologies I utilize - they are current and acceptable to the scientific community. The main difference is that I have translated the scientific language CORRECTLY into layperson terminology to avoid the misconceptions that permeate every current debate. What exactly do you mean by "The introduction of this kind of material into science courses will not facillitate this process and will turn some minds away from open exploration of old fields and new." My curricular adaptations are not quite finished and I assume - correct me if I am wrong - that you have not read my book.

Just because you have reconciled your faith with your methodology, it does not follow that the introduction of your conclusions will be beneficial. Proper scientific inquiry, as you should know, proceeds from an assumption of a possible theory that is tested for viability. If the goal of the methodology is the proof of that theory at all costs, this is bad science. I can say the same thing about other fields, like history. Proper history has a proper methodology. Unfortunately, there is much "history" that is taught today that is not a result of this methodology. The result? Subjective history, wherein history becomes a means to an end. Subjective science is at the end of the road you would open. While this may not be the case for you, it will be the consequence of maintaining the validity of imporoper methodology in science. And those children/students who truly have something to offer might very well find themselves engaged in meaningless and trivial pursuits.

Again - you are correct - but to the vast layperson population it is a 'bugaboo' that will never be settled until a fresh new approach is taken - like mine. These same laypersons are at the front of the line demanding laws be passed restricting the advancement of science based solely upon misconceptions. The "many fundamentalists who see it to be" will become the few - then hopefully the none.
I could not disagree with you more. This is what has destroyed historical inquiry, IMO, trying to force-fit goals into a methodolgy. Of course, in the case of history, the goals are a product of secular thinking (Howard Zinn, et al), not religious, but the consequences will be the same.

Rob :)

Epicman

09-26-2005, 09:46 PM

Neurofizz:

You state: "The statement above refers specifically to the Board's recommentation in the context of non-scientific evaluation of a scientific theory."

Exactly where do you find - in the board's recommendation - any mention of a "non-scientific evaluation" ?

There is a misconception stated in the Nobel letter itself where you may have got this line of reasoning. The Kansas Board, in its recommendation, states that it does NOT support ID theory. That fact invalidates the entire line of reasoning behind the purpose of even constructing the Nobel letter in the first place - if what you propose is true.

While I did select those who reviewed my book none of them were personally known by me beforehand. My entire arguement is that the "top-down" method of the existing peer review methodology allows for the mistranslation and misconception that is causing a slow-down of scientific advancement.

Before you argue peer review in its current state as a "tried and true methodology" look all around you at the misconceptions that fuel legislation that hamper cloning and stem cell research - to name only two.

The layperson cannot be ignored and brushed aside. They are proving to be an ever-increasing influential force when it comes to deciding the course of scientific advancement. They should expect and demand that science speaks in their language. My insistance on this translation does not degrade me in any way - it ensures an understanding among the masses.

Just a little example: When the President gives a State-of-the-Union address what happens immediately afterward? Journalists jump in right on tv ans translate what the man said. Are they 100% correct? Does this mistranslation cause misconception? You bet it does and this is done openly - not behind closed doors as does the mistranslation and sensationalism of scientific journals.

I do appreciate your critiques - they are valuable. Each time one is offered I believe we get closer to an understanding. I in no way wish to discredit anyone of you - only to get you to back what you state with some kind of understandable reasoning.

Aconite

09-26-2005, 09:47 PM

Aconite, the EXACT QUOTE from the letter that 38 Nobel Prize winners signed:

Second paragraph last sentence:
"We are also concerned by the Board’s recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution."

What does this quotation say to you Aconite and anyone else reading it?
It tells me that you took the quote out of context, because the rest of the letter clearly indicates they are talking about religiously based pseudoscientific criticism, NOT scientific testing and criticism. To quote that, I would have to reproduce the entire letter here, and I don't see the point of doing that. You can haul out that one sentence all you like; without its context, you can make it seem to mean any number of things.

reph

09-26-2005, 10:09 PM

First to Dave: We cannot identify the intelligence without stepping on and attempting to disprove one's religion. That is not productive at all.
Well, that's the elephant in the living room, isn't it? To do science fairly and properly, you have to be ready to accept whatever conclusions follow from investigations conducted by the accepted methods. But as soon as you say something inconsistent with anyone's religion, in a scientific context or any other context, there's a taboo against stating your position. Religious beliefs enjoy something like diplomatic immunity. Each of us is supposed to pretend that everyone else's beliefs are correct, whether or not we think so.

An example unrelated to evolution: It's socially acceptable to say, on a public message board, "Prayer works." It isn't acceptable to say, on the same board, "Prayer doesn't work."

Who can give me a valid reason for the special status of beliefs sheltered by the religion umbrella? Why are they untouchable?

ResearchGuy

09-26-2005, 10:11 PM

This is important reading for all involved in this issue: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

--Ken

sellthepharm

09-26-2005, 10:16 PM

I say we move on to something less controversial, say politics? The Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

(just kidding)

Aconite

09-26-2005, 10:17 PM

This is important reading for all involved in this issue: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

"According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise."

I kiss The Onion's feet.

Aconite

09-26-2005, 10:29 PM

An example unrelated to evolution: It's socially acceptable to say, on a public message board, "Prayer works." It isn't acceptable to say, on the same board, "Prayer doesn't work."
I think it depends greatly on which "society" considers it "socially acceptable." I'm currently living in the Bible Belt, where people feel quite free to express their dismay over "how our kids aren't allowed to say 'under God' as part of the Pledge" to perfect strangers in public places, but if I express my dismay at stickers on science textbooks proclaiming evolution "just a theory," I'm "being political." It's much like the hypocrisy that states that a man can talk about his girlfriend all he wants and he's just being human, but if a guy talks about his boyfriend, he's "throwing his gayness in your face."

NeuroFizz

09-26-2005, 10:46 PM

The layperson cannot be ignored and brushed aside. They are proving to be an ever-increasing influential force when it comes to deciding the course of scientific advancement. They should expect and demand that science speaks in their language. My insistance on this translation does not degrade me in any way - it ensures an understanding among the masses.

Hi again, Glenn

Sorry for prolonging this, but I'm suggesting you get that anonymous peer review of your ideas/theories to see if they hold academic water before you translate it all for the masses. Too late, you say? You've self-published. Now is the time to go for it, while your word is getting out. Again, you'll probably not find mainstream acceptance until you do it this way. If there are holes in your ideas/theories, you have merely translated a holey theory (pun intended). If the holes can be patched to the satisfaction of anonymous experts on the two sides of the issue, you have ammunition to go beyond self-publishing--to go mainstream. See what I mean? I don't think you've given your ideas the benefit of a the proper critical evaluation prior to your translation. Don't sell yourself short on this. It was your decision to jump into the business of scientific theory, so do it right. One way or the other, I don't think you'll regret it. And, I doubt it'll hurt sales of your current book.

ResearchGuy

09-26-2005, 10:49 PM

...stickers on science textbooks proclaiming evolution "just a theory,"...
Let's try another analogy. Say, for example, some group wanted to label English textbooks with a sticker that says, "So-called 'standard' usage (spelling, grammar, diction, punctuation) is just a social preference. There are competing preferences (theories of writing) that should be considered in deciding how to spell words, punctuate sentences, and express thoughts."

Do you recall the "Ebonics" kerfuffle in Oakland, CA a few years ago? Well, the above disclaimer is not at all far from what some folks -- with the best of intentions -- seriously proposed.

Want another? How about this sticker on Health texts: "The 'food pyramid' is just one theory of nutrition. Other theories suggest different approaches to eating, such as favoring fast food, sugary carbonated beverages, and saturated fat as primary elements of daily food intake."

The fast food industry, cattlemen, snack-food producers, etc., would love that.

--Ken

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-26-2005, 11:19 PM

Regarding religious statements' relative acceptability to society: I read reph's "elephant in the living room" point as being that religious statements, by and large, enjoy a certain "above criticism" status in polite discussion. This is useful when we are, in fact, in a polite discussion: there's no place in friendly conversation for telling people how wrong, internally inconsistent, illogical we think their religious beliefs are.

However, there is no place in the scientific method for this sort of sacred cow. No scientific hypothesis can enjoy the status of "above criticism" and still be a functional hypothesis. Hypotheses exist to be tested. If supporters of the Intelligent Design/Creationism movements want their hypotheses injected into the science classroom/scientific community, they can't very well protest, as Epicman seemed to, that it's disrespectful of their religion(s) to try to disprove said hypotheses. Conversely (contrariwise?) if they do want to shroud their hypotheses in sacred cow hide, then their hypotheses have no place in the science classroom/scientific community (and probably oughtn't to even be called 'hypotheses', for that matter).

Sparhawk

09-26-2005, 11:34 PM

Darwin's theory is just that; a theory. IT's not's Darwins Correlary. Just as intelligent design is a theory. Both views are at oposite ends of the "Opinion" scale.

THis is a heated topic and people are paaionate about theirh beleifs, be they religious or scientific or somewhere in between.

Epicman, good luck with your book, and for the record, I have a Jesus fish on one side of my truck and A Darwin fish on the other side. I'm not wise enough to interpret the cosmic meaning and origins of the universe. To assume we know the mind and intent of a higher intellignece with the mental and technological force to create a planet, let alone a universe, is both arrogant and indicative of man's typical beleif in his superority as a species.

Our science knows very little of the Universe and constantly contradicts itself. Organized religion has a history based in blood and barbarism all in the name of a superior being. More people have killed and been killed in the name of God than in any other cause in teh history of mankind. (anybody wanna argure that fact ??)

Let's just all agree that we aren't smart enough to know the answers. All we have is theory and assumptions Nothing more nothing less.

-Sparhawk

MacAllister

09-26-2005, 11:41 PM

Darwin's theory is just that; a theory. IT's not's Darwins Correlary. Just as intelligent design is a theory. Actually, no. You're using the word "theory" two different ways. ID is in no way a scientifically-defined theory in the sense that Darwinism is. ID is theory in the lay sense of "someone's best guess"--which is an entirely different animal.

clintl

09-26-2005, 11:52 PM

An interesting and relevant article on the weaknesses of the two main arguments for ID:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9452500/

reph

09-27-2005, 12:13 AM

This kind of endeavor, IMO, puts too much emphasis on the OT; it is in the NT that the message of Christ is found.
Oy.

pconsidine

09-27-2005, 12:15 AM

Clint,

That has always been my problem with the efforts to introduce ID in school curricula - there's nothing there to teach. There's no new information, no experimental re-evaluation of existing information, no new methodology to compare and contrast with existing ones - in short, nothing that warrants its inclusion into any science curriculum anywhere.

If ID were to be introduced into an educational setting at all, it is far more appropriate for a class in Philosophy than science. There's just nothing there to discuss with regard to science.

Which makes this whole debate even sillier. Essentially, it's the same as debating whether one should read a book in English or Russian, when the book itself is written in Mandarin Chinese. They opposing sides are speaking totally different langauges and neither one really describes the matter at hand.

Aconite

09-27-2005, 12:31 AM

Which makes this whole debate even sillier. Essentially, it's the same as debating whether one should read a book in English or Russian, when the book itself is written in Mandarin Chinese. They opposing sides are speaking totally different langauges and neither one really describes the matter at hand.
You don't think the whole debate is an attempt to describe that matter? How many people right here in this thread stated ID didn't have a place in the science curriculum because it's not science? Or did you mean some other debate?

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-27-2005, 12:32 AM

Actually, no. You're using the word "theory" two different ways. ID is in no way a scientifically-defined theory in the sense that Darwinism is. ID is theory in the lay sense of "someone's best guess"--which is an entirely different animal.Useful links to educate the layperson as to the difference between the lowercase-t "just a hunch" theory and the uppercase-t scientific Theory:

Evolution Is A Fact And A Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) (Laurence Moran)

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) (Jerry Wilson)

For those who can't stand clicking links, here are the relevant excerpts from Wilson's article:

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.Thus, a person who derides Evolution as "only a theory" either A) is unclear himself on what a scientific Theory is, or B) is being dishonest and attempting to muddy the waters.

Anyone in this discussion deriding Evolution as "only a theory" can probably be assumed to have been in category A). Having read this far, however, they'll have read enough to leave that category. Where they go from A) is up to them.

reph

09-27-2005, 12:33 AM

Perhaps 'a specific genome as related to a species' or 'a genome specific to a certain species', as in the feline species or the canine species, comes closer to the mark [emphasis added].
Pharm, you know, don't you, that there are multiple species of felids and multiple species of canids? And, more to the point, that genomes change?

And Reph, I owe you an apology. My 'laughing' comment in an earlier post was inexcusable. It was never my intention to belittle or ridicule your opinions and that post gives just that implication.
So did you mean it when you said it? Are you saying you found new speciation through mutations laughable at the time but you don't a day later? Which sellthepharm am I to believe, the one who said he was laughing or the one who now disowns that comment? Then there was a "holy grail" remark – mutations are the holy grail of evolutionists – and your report of having argued with professors. Are those comments similarly subject to reversal? They too entered into my decision to decline to set forth the basics of speciation.

As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in your court. If you don't believe mutations lead to new species, it's your turn to say where new species come from. I've given reasons in earlier posts.

robeiae

09-27-2005, 12:36 AM

Wait a minute, Nicole! Are you suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is true?!?! I'll have to take issue with THAT...

Rob :)

DaveKuzminski

09-27-2005, 12:40 AM

Aconite

09-27-2005, 12:44 AM

Wait a minute, Nicole! Are you suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is true?!?! I'll have to take issue with THAT...
Go ye, and read The Onion; return ye, and report upon it, and no fewer than tenscore words shall ye use in the reporting, and no later than Wednesday is the reporting to be completed.

Birol

09-27-2005, 12:52 AM

If the proponents of evolution agreed to permit creationism and intelligent design to be taught in the science classroom, would the proponents of creationism and intelligent design be willing to agree to permit evolution to be taught in Sunday school?

Aconite

09-27-2005, 12:53 AM

Think of in terms of the universiality of ID theory when you only carry it to the point that I have: EVERYONE can agree with the theory and plug in their own version of who or what the intelligence was behind it.
This is the same basic argument used by the man who tried earnestly to persuade me that having the Ten Commandments displayed in courtrooms wasn't promoting Christianity because the Ten Commandments were the basis of all law.

NeuroFizz

09-27-2005, 01:00 AM

If the theory of evolution is fair game, then the theory of intelligent design is fair game. I still ask, who designed the intelligent designer?

Or, if the Intelligent Designer is all powerful, can he* create a rock so heavy he, himself, can't lift it?

*Substitute she if you wish.

Richard

09-27-2005, 01:02 AM

EVERYONE can agree with the theory and plug in their own version of who or what the intelligence was behind it.

I don't believe in an intelligence behind it.

Birol

09-27-2005, 01:18 AM

Epicman, you repeatedly have stated that you have found
....Biblical support for the vast majority of evolutionary theory.
and
....scientific support for the entirety of the Biblical Creation event.
You have also stated that
A politically neutral statement of my ID theories allows one to "plug in" their version of the intelligence behind the design: God, Buddha, Allah, a "force", Sam the Plumber, or nothing at all - if that is what they believe.

My question to you is, how can your version of Intelligent Design truly encompass all religions and faiths if the only religious text your investigations validated was the Christian Bible?

Epicman

09-27-2005, 02:03 AM

Once again my theories are in my book and stated in plain English so that anyone from a high school student on up can read, understand, and critique them. I WANT everyone, housewives, scientists, boneheads, smart elecks, preachers, computer programmers, amature scientists, EVERYONE! to criticize, improve, shoot full of holes, choose to believe or not to believe, or ignore my ideas. Someone mentioned my advertising my book - it is just you - I made what I believe to be a very generous offer to everyone here (lurkers too whom I cannot PM) If you have a problem with it - don't buy it. I have made my money back well over 2 dozen times now - that is why I made the offer. It was also pertinent to the discussion at hand - if you read it all.

Neurofizz Thank You again - you are perhaps the most amicable and productive at delivering constructive criticism - you are a true master at it - don't loose it as I highly value your opinion just because of the way you deliver it.:Clap:

In answer to the peer review I fear none of it - the book is readily available all over the internet, in fact I have about 15 copies left of my original 75 targeted for review copies. If anyone knows of any legitamate critical reviewers I haven't sent one to please either post them here or send such info to glenn@cometogetherbooks.com

To answer the why the Bible and not another religious text? I am a Christian and a scientist. Christianity is one of the more widespread religions and even moreso in the US. The point is that I support SCIENTIFICALLY ID theory all the way to the point before actually naming the intelligence involved. WHY? Because that is where you tread on various religious beliefs and get into the unproductive separitists issues of Church and state. Those of you who state ID theory is only philosophical or not science-based are not up with the current theory or Theory. I have scientifically supported ID Theory. I have also done it in a way as to include those of no belief, great belief, differing beliefs, and anyone anywhere in the range of anywhere. If you are truely scientifically minded you would at least see the merit in presenting and examining various viewpoints.

Your collective reasoning behind ID theory being unscientific so far has amounted to a "just because" restatement of the opinions of a few individuals. The main one seems to be the origin of the designer. I state again that if ID Theory stops short of actually naming the designer AND remains scientific to that point then ID Theory IS based upon science. My curricular adaptations of my theories will illustrate this. When reading the 'politically neutral' version of my Theory I support scientifically every idea presented and leave the intllegence to be referred to as just a "force". Call it an alien, God, Mr. Super Creator, or whatever you wish - this is what makes my ID Theories universal.

To the evolutionists - how far will we have progressed if we can have the Creationists agreeing to most of evolutionary Theory? Your methods so far have resulted in 60% of Americans believing that ID Theory should be taught alongside of evolution in public schools. Don't give me that ID Theory isn't science line either. I recognized there existed no cohesive scientifically supported ID Theory - that is why I introduced "The Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design" and "The Theory of Intelligently Designed Human Evolution" just as any other scientist in the past recognized a lacking and provided an idea - so too have I.

Most of you have illustrated here the exact reason that I, over several years, have formulated, tested, had tested, and finalized my Theories. Your methods simply do not work - let's see if mine do.

Richard

09-27-2005, 02:13 AM

pconsidine

09-27-2005, 02:16 AM

You don't think the whole debate is an attempt to describe that matter? How many people right here in this thread stated ID didn't have a place in the science curriculum because it's not science? Or did you mean some other debate?

I probably should have just held my virtual tongue, Aconite. To me, this whole topic is tired old news. My father is a physicist and my mother is a devout Catholic. Having been raised in an environment of healthy debate, we've had this same conversation time and time again over the years with the same lack of resolution.

With all due respect to Epicman, I just don't believe the matter can ever be settled to everyone's satisfaction. The two sides of the debate don't even speak the same language, which necessarily makes compromise and consensus all but impossible (which was the gist of my Chinese book crack).

More to the point, there's no resolution because there's no end to what we don't know. Even if it were proved beyond any doubt that God created the universe, the question would still remain "Where did God come from?" And so on and so on and so on. It's a question without an answer. If one is comofrtable saying that "God abideth," then why not just think that "the universe abideth" and be done with it?

There's just no answer. And I'm not sure the search is fruitful anymore.

Aconite

09-27-2005, 02:20 AM

To answer the why the Bible and not another religious text?
But that's not what Birol asked. She asked how you could say it was universal when you deliberately reconciled evolution with a religious text, and only one: the Christian Bible.

The point is that I support SCIENTIFICALLY ID theory all the way to the point before actually naming the intelligence involved. WHY? Because that is where you tread on various religious beliefs and get into the unproductive separitists issues of Church and state.
No, that's what we've been trying to get across to you. It starts being religious much farther back than that. ID was designed from the beginning to be a religion-based theory (not scientific Theory, as it's being used here), so it's disingenuous of its proponants to claim that because they don't specifically name the Intelligent Designer, it's not religious. There are many religions and philosophies--and atheism--that do not work the way Christianity does; it may appear to you that you're being universal, but you're not. Let me put it to you this way: If you wish everyone "happy holidays" in late December, you may think you're being universal by not naming which holidays and saying people can plug in their own, but I guarantee that the flaw in that is immediately apparent to those who celebrate no holidays in December.

Your methods simply do not work - let's see if mine do.
I am astonished to discover those methods don't work. What is your criteria for "working"?

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-27-2005, 02:21 AM

Don't give me that ID Theory isn't science line either. I recognized there existed no cohesive scientifically supported ID Theory - that is why I introduced "The Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design" and "The Theory of Intelligently Designed Human Evolution" just as any other scientist in the past recognized a lacking and provided an idea - so too have I.

Most of you have illustrated here the exact reason that I, over several years, have formulated, tested, had tested, and finalized my Theories. Your methods simply do not work - let's see if mine do.But are they really Theories? (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) Has anyone verified your hypotheses besides you?

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.Are they even Hypotheses? (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) How testable are they? Do they further scientific inquiry?

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.Do you understand why the concept of Intelligent Design can not in any way be called "science"?

Aconite

09-27-2005, 02:23 AM

I probably should have just held my virtual tongue, Aconite. To me, this whole topic is tired old news. My father is a physicist and my mother is a devout Catholic.
I'm puzzled. I thought the RC Church declared evolution was not inconsistant with the teachings of the Church.

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-27-2005, 02:28 AM

Your collective reasoning behind ID theory being unscientific so far has amounted to a "just because" restatement of the opinions of a few individuals..No, it hasn't. It's based on your blanket statement that an intelligent designer exists, which is the part you have to scientifically prove, and the fact that your idea of peer review is 'buy my book'.The sad thing is, it's not proof that's necessary. All he has to do regarding this intelligent designer is come up with a hypothesis which is based on observable data and which admits experimentation and the possibility of disproof.

If he does this, he'll have done more toward converting ID into an actual scientific study than has any other of its adherents. But good luck to him--how do you test the hypothesis "God exists"?

robeiae

09-27-2005, 03:02 AM

Your collective reasoning behind ID theory being unscientific so far has amounted to a "just because" restatement of the opinions of a few individuals. The main one seems to be the origin of the designer. I state again that if ID Theory stops short of actually naming the designer AND remains scientific to that point then ID Theory IS based upon science. My curricular adaptations of my theories will illustrate this. When reading the 'politically neutral' version of my Theory I support scientifically every idea presented and leave the intllegence to be referred to as just a "force". Call it an alien, God, Mr. Super Creator, or whatever you wish - this is what makes my ID Theories universal.
And your reasoning behind your ID theory being scientific so far has amounted to "because I say it is."

I do not know what your theory is, nor do I know how you support/defend it. But I do know that your theory is a product of an agenda. you've admitted that yourself. Whether it is a noble or ignoble agenda makes no difference; approaching science in education from this direction is bad news.

Your methods simply do not work - let's see if mine do.
Don't work for who, exactly? You? Again, it's because you have an agenda. I can make these same points with regard to other scientific theories...global warming induced by human action comes to mind, but that's a subject for another debate. So, you continue to assert your accomplishments by why of claiming what you've proven, but really offer nothing in the way of proof that your methodology is sound. What is your methodology?

Rob :)

reph

09-27-2005, 03:11 AM

I WANT everyone, housewives, scientists, . . . EVERYONE! to criticize, improve, shoot full of holes, choose to believe or not to believe, or ignore my ideas.
Good, because here we are, voicing one criticism: that calling them ideas is correct and calling them a theory is not.

I state again that if ID Theory stops short of actually naming the designer AND remains scientific to that point then ID Theory IS based upon science.
It's hard to know in what ways ID "theory" might be based on science, given that it's off to a bad start in not qualifying as a theory as scientists use that word.

Your methods so far have resulted in 60% of Americans believing that ID Theory should be taught alongside of evolution in public schools.
How do you know the 60% is the result of somebody's methods? Maybe the percentage is that high because (1) some people seek answers to scientific questions from religion rather than from science and (2) other people haven't studied the issues enough to have an informed opinion.

Your methods simply do not work - let's see if mine do.
I don't know who the "you" of "Your methods" is. Were you addressing all or some of the contributors to this thread? Methods for doing what? Your goal (Glenn's) is to reconcile evolution with religion. I don't have that goal at all.

Epicman

09-27-2005, 03:30 AM

"What is your criteria for "working"?"

My criteria for working is that us scientists, for going on almost 150 years, have failed to convince the majority of the feasibility of evolution theory. There has to be something wrong with our collective methods or else we would have a universal understanding by now - not a growing body of detractors who are convincing our legislature to pass laws forbidding certain research based SOLELY upon misconceptions. It is Not working!

"It starts being religious much farther back than that. ID was designed from the beginning to be a religion-based theory (not scientific Theory, as it's being used here..."

Religion, or lack thereof, does not enter at all in my politically neutral version of my Theories and leaves the reader to define, if they wish, who or what the intelligence is.

"But that's not what Birol asked. She asked how you could say it was universal when you deliberately reconciled evolution with a religious text, and only one: the Christian Bible."

Again the politically neutral versions of my Theories do not state, allude to, or define a slant toward any religion. I only introduce my Theories by providing my formulation of the Theories based upon the Christian Bible for two reasons: to bring in the majority of US believers as readers and to provide a dual Scientific and Biblical support. That accomplished the only version to touch a child in a public schools ears will be the politically neutral versions - you all know why that is necessary.

"Do you understand why the concept of Intelligent Design can not in any way be called "science"?

I do understand why you think that: you are limiting your views to previous ideas. You are shutting out - and attempting to discredit - a Theory that you haven't even bothered to investigate. Do you truely believe that all the good ideas have already been published? Can you state with absolute certainty that science the way it is today is the way it will always be? That advancement stops here? We are done? Drop the curtain? Burn our labs and textbooks because we have arrived? This is the end all be all? No more new songs to be sung? no more new movies to be made? Damn! I missed that newsflash!

"Are they even Hypotheses? (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) How testable are they? Do they further scientific inquiry?"

YES. Very testable and they have been numerous times in fact by numerous individuals. Absolutely!

"But are they really Theories? (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) Has anyone verified your hypotheses besides you?"

Yes they are Theories. Yes they were verified numerous times before attaining the Theory designation - I am a scientist and fully ascribe to the scientific method and the nature of science.

"The sad thing is, it's not proof that's necessary. All he has to do regarding this intelligent designer is come up with a hypothesis which is based on observable data and which admits experimentation and the possibility of disproof.

If he does this, he'll have done more toward converting ID into an actual scientific study than has any other of its adherents."

Why do you find this "sad"? If you know anything about science you know that it is always subject to change based upon new supporting or refuting evidence. Science does not "Prove" anything it is also falsifiable. I did come up with hypotheses based upon observable data, experimentation was performed, and I invite anyone to disprove, support, or improve upon my Theories. Who says that it cannot be I who has done more toward converting ID into an actual scientific study?

"But good luck to him--how do you test the hypothesis "God exists"?"

Find an instance where I propose such a hypothesis. This is not about the existence of God this is about ID Theory. Your personal feelings or hunches have no real place in science just as mine do not. My Theories are based upon and supported by scientific methods, experimentation, and support.

Optimus

09-27-2005, 03:46 AM

"Criteria" is plural.

robeiae

09-27-2005, 03:52 AM

"Criteria" is plural.
"Optimus" is singular, and no wonder...:D

Rob :)

Pat~

09-27-2005, 03:56 AM

Reph, sorry this response is a bit late...I've been away from the computer...

Yes, exactly. The animals didn't qualify as partners for Adam, so God executed a second idea instead: a woman. Implication: God thought at first that an animal might do.

Verse 18 doesn't say he intends to create a human companion.

No, I inferred that based on my belief that God, to be God, would have to have omniscience. He would know already that the animals wouldn't do, because to not know would limit His divinity.

"So he can see his need, too": Where are you getting this information about God's purpose in bringing the animals to Adam? Verse 19 says only that God brought them to him to be named.

Again, if God is all-knowing, He's not looking for the answer; only Adam is. God could've told him at the outset that none would do, but I think it's interesting that he lets Adam discover this on his own.

The KJV doesn't have the past perfect tense. It says "19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found any help meet for him." Chapter 2 hasn't mentioned a creation of animals up to this point. (Don't tell me it relies on the creation of animals in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 has God creating plants and a man all over again. Each chapter is a separate version of the creation story.) Reading between the lines, but not awfully far from them, I construe the last clause in v. 20 as meaning that Adam, God, or both had hoped that one of the animals would do as Adam's companion (partner, helper, spouse).

Again, not wanting to limit God's intelligence, I interpret this as meaning He ultimately planned to create a helper "corresponding to him" (as worded in the original Hebrew), and I believe God knew from the outset that animals didn't correspond the way another human would. I interpret the narrative as a review of the creation of animals from chapter one. Hebrew narratives were often not told chronologically.

Aha! So Adam was scanning the animals to select a helper.

I think we might agree here! He also was to name them. In the process, he discovered what God already knew...none perfectly 'corresponded' to him, so the story climaxes with God creating Eve, and Adam then exclaims over her perfect correspondence with him.

sellthepharm

09-27-2005, 05:17 AM

Pharm, you know, don't you, that there are multiple species of felids and multiple species of canids? And, more to the point, that genomes change?

So did you mean it when you said it? Are you saying you found new speciation through mutations laughable at the time but you don't a day later? Which sellthepharm am I to believe, the one who said he was laughing or the one who now disowns that comment? Then there was a "holy grail" remark – mutations are the holy grail of evolutionists – and your report of having argued with professors. Are those comments similarly subject to reversal? They too entered into my decision to decline to set forth the basics of speciation.

As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in your court. If you don't believe mutations lead to new species, it's your turn to say where new species come from. I've given reasons in earlier posts.

Reph, you should take my apology for what it is - an apology. There was no hidden meaning intended. From your rather surly response I can see that you have no intention of doing so. Your response is indicative of the combative nature you've taken on and I decline to participate in a discussion where opposing opinions receive such a vitriolic and petty response.

It's no secret that I am a Christian and, as such, hold to certain creationist views. I've also made it clear that I do not discount the effects of natural selection on a given species or populations; the evidence is clear and observable that creatures best suited for survival in an environment will prosper while those less suited will not. I do not find natural selection, as defined above, incompatible with a creationist viewpoint and never have.

When I asked for you to provide evidence to back up mutations causing the rise of new species the only answer I'm aware of that you've given is

there's no incentive for me to take the trouble to do that
and

I have no incentive to use my time to summarize scientific knowledge if you're going to claim that any counterargument at all suffices to refute it.

and

The argument (argument?!)that mutations account for the rise of new species needs no defense.

and

The information on evolution of new species is in print all over the place.

It's obvious you and I are not going to get anywhere with this. For this reason, and others of which I was gently reminded in one of Rob's earlier posts, I'm going to opt out of this discussion. You have the last word.

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-27-2005, 05:37 AM

I say "sad," Epicman, because I find it sad that even given the relatively low bar the scientific method sets, ID-adherents have failed to meet even that criterion. A valid hypothesis need not be proven--simply disprovable. And ID has yet to produce even that much.

And I do not believe that you have, either. Again, I ask: In what way do your hypotheses admit experimentation? Describe your experiments and observations. Which other researchers besides you have verified your hypotheses, that you can claim you've developed a scientific Theory? Names, please.

And, since you got hung up on semantics last time, we'll try again: Exactly how does one go about disproving the hypothesis "An 'intelligent designer' did it"? (And if that is not your hypothesis, what is your hypothesis, and from what data did you draw it, and how do you go about testing it? I'm not playing 20 Questions for your amusement, here.)

Until you can answer those questions here, I see no reason to believe that you have made ID any more of a scientific study than it already was--that is to say, not at all.

(And no, "Buy my book and you'll find out!" is not a convincing answer.)

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-27-2005, 05:42 AM

DaveKuzminski

09-27-2005, 07:04 AM

From what I've read so far in this topic, Epicman is making broad claims but is unwilling to defend his claims. Therefore, I can only assume that Epicman is trying to sell his book, not actually defend his claims. Since he is unwilling to enter into an actual discussion, I see no need to even try discussing this with him. I suppose his next book will be 200 Intelligent Designers.

reph

09-27-2005, 07:53 AM

I inferred that based on my belief that God, to be God, would have to have omniscience. He would know already that the animals wouldn't do, because to not know would limit His divinity.
I thought that might be the answer: God knew everything in advance. That's the modern (since Aquinas, at least) conception of God, but do we know that the ancient Hebrews had the same understanding? God's personality (for want of a better word) changes from one end of the O.T. to the other. In Genesis 1 and 2, he's clearly powerful, but I'm not sure he knows what will happen. This early in the O.T., God is more "human" than later. He can make mistakes. At some point, which you can probably identify because you know more Bible than I do, he decides that creating humanity was a mistake and plans to destroy everyone. Then he changes his mind.

Interpretation is difficult because narrative at the time these books were written didn't take an interior point of view. We aren't told what characters thought, only what they said.

Birol

09-27-2005, 08:01 AM

Again the politically neutral versions of my Theories do not state, allude to, or define a slant toward any religion. I only introduce my Theories by providing my formulation of the Theories based upon the Christian Bible for two reasons: to bring in the majority of US believers as readers and to provide a dual Scientific and Biblical support. That accomplished the only version to touch a child in a public schools ears will be the politically neutral versions - you all know why that is necessary.

If your theories are based upon the Christian Bible, then they are slanted toward that religion.

Also, the citizens of the United States do not determine what is and what is not science. Science is science regardless of nationality. A hypothesis should not depend on one's citzenship. If you have formulated your theories to appeal to the population of just one country, how are your theories politically neutral?

reph

09-27-2005, 08:03 AM

Reph, you should take my apology for what it is - an apology.
I'm too old to be moved by unsupported shoulds.

There was no hidden meaning intended.
Hidden meanings weren't among my complaints. Inconsistency was; so was refusal to answer legitimate questions like "Where do you think new species come from?"

It's obvious you and I are not going to get anywhere with this.
I agree. We don't have a common understanding of the rules of discourse.

Birol

09-27-2005, 08:05 AM

To the evolutionists - how far will we have progressed if we can have the Creationists agreeing to most of evolutionary Theory? Your methods so far have resulted in 60% of Americans believing that ID Theory should be taught alongside of evolution in public schools.

I may have missed it in an earlier post, but what is the source of the 60% figure quoted here? From where is this data pulled?

AdamH

09-27-2005, 08:06 AM

More to the point, there's no resolution because there's no end to what we don't know. Even if it were proved beyond any doubt that God created the universe, the question would still remain "Where did God come from?" And so on and so on and so on. It's a question without an answer. If one is comofrtable saying that "God abideth," then why not just think that "the universe abideth" and be done with it?

There's just no answer. And I'm not sure the search is fruitful anymore.

Excellent point! There may never be an answer and humanity may never have the knowledge necessary to crack the code.

To flip it around (and play Devil's Advocate), what good would it do to just leave the question unanswered? It would always sitting in the background like a 500 pound gorilla begging for attention. I think it's an answer that will always be sought because it's in human nature to be inquisitive. Ptolemy developed a geocentric model of the solar system. If we settled on not questioning everything around us, the sun would be still circling Earth.

The question may have no answer, and looking for it could sometimes be like trying to suck an icecube through a bendy straw but given an infinite amount of time in an infinite universe, eventually someone will suck that icecube through. Unfortunately, we live in finite times and in finite lives. So who knows?

Epicman

09-27-2005, 09:28 AM

One more time - and I'm going back to just letting anyone interested keep up with my experience with Diggory and the sales of my book...

I am a scientist and a Christian who saw a 150 year-old debate that I tried to find a way to settle - or at least bring the sides into a position from which an end may be in sight. I have studied and researched the Bible because I was born and raised a Christian. I decided on a course of study that would lead to medical school in the early 90's. I have taken far more science courses than any medical school requires: General - Organic - Physical Chemistry, Graduate courses in Mammalogy, Embryology, Physiology, Anatomy, Heredity, Evolution, Histology, Pharmacology, Immunology, Pathogenic Microbiology, Biology of Cancer, etc., etc, etc., Physics through Medical Physics, and countless courses in History, Psychology, and Education.

I changed my course of action due to a physical disability and a professor urged me to write for the Salem Press as a paid contributing author. I did six or seven articles and the work is being released this fall "The Seventies in America." If you can call this a publishing credit then I am a published author.

During my education I was exposed to the depth of evolutionary Theory and, obviously, it conflicted with my faith-based beliefs. I learned it, was tested on it, and wrote papers on it. Dolly the sheep came about while I was in an embryology class and my presentation paper was focused on the widespread misconceptions about cloning based upon mistranslations of the journal articles. During all this time I struggled, and witnessed the struggle of others including students and professors, with the conflict between science and faith.

I studied the history of the debate, the history of evolution Theory, and my Bible looking for answers. As a scientist I followed the scientific method and the 'Nature of Science' in all my studies and research. A few years ago I formulated a set of hypotheses that settled the issue in my mind - scientifically AND Biblically. Pure peer review is not so friendly to faith but I did find some scientists and theologians who would at least look at my hypotheses. I did have to translate my work for the theologian side as most were not familiar with the language of science. The responses ran from "opening a can of worms" to "why didn't I think of that." I retested, researched, refined, and resubmitted my work and the response was better.

At this time I remembered my previous research into the cloning issues and decided to approach the Creation/Evolution debate in a fresh new way. First I would pre-translate my Theories so no journalist would intentionally or accidentally mistranslate my work and create even more of the controversy that I was attempting to fix in the first place. I had high school students, housewives, scientists, pastors, and ordinary Joes and Josephines review, edit, and refine my work. I wanted something that would not intimidate a layperson, engage a scientist, and be appealing to Christians, Creationists, and Evolutionists alike. I accomplished that as everyone to date who has read the book has applauded the unique approach and the potential the contents have to "bring the sides together" "narrow the gap" "end the ignorance in the debate" - just a few of the comments I have recieved.

My book is also a challenge to my fellow scientists to change the way their work is presented. Translate it for the masses and we will stop a lot of the controversy before it even gets started. Imagine if the masses didn't march to the steps of the capitol demanding legislation be enacted that would restrict our funding and even our freedom to research for the furtherance of science. Most of the marching and protesting is based upon misconception and this is how to fix it.

My Theories find scientific and Biblical support for almost all of evolution Theory. The intent here is to bring the Creationists to a point of recognizing and agreeing that the bulk of evolution Theory is acceptable and valid. What do I get from the evolution side of the debate? Look in this thread to see an illustration. Evolution Theory supporters have long accused the Creationist as being a hard-headed and even ignorant collection of individuals. It appears that designation has changed and the support for that is here on this thread. Once again it is narrowed to one simple question that I have asked before:

What is the problem with someone attempting to bring the Creationist to a point of agreeing with 90% of evolution Theory?

Is it because I have allowed him/her to maintain their faith simultaneously?

I cannot call my stance Creavolution and maintain the separation of Church and State some demand. I use ID Theory solely as a way to maintain a 'politically neutral' stance so I do not get sued out of the classroom. I further keep my ID Theory solely science-based all the way through evolution, human evolution, differences in the races, natural selction, use and disuse in humans, etc. etc. etc. I leave off actually identifying the intelligence because that would tread on religious convictions. I am prohibited from doing that because I haven't found a scientific basis for it yet. The 99.99% remainder of my ID Theory does have a scientific basis. Yes it is refutable just as any Theory is. Theories are subject to change as science progresses and many of them have.

I will not publish my book on this forum as that doesn't make sense - this is supported by the fact that no one else does it. This thread was created because someone chose to argue a sentence from a press release I wrote. The thread became off-topic and was split in two - this is one of them. The popularity of this thread and the topic within is supported by the number of views (over 300 in 12 hours) illustrates exactly the hotness of the topic. It also illustrates that there are those seeking a resolution to this tired old debate. In case you wonder - I always use layperson terminology when speaking and writing and I illustrated why in this post and throughout this thread.

So I will leave with this: I am a Scientist, a Christian, an Evolutionist, and a Creationist. I use ID as a convenient and politically neutral vehicle to express my Theories. I even renamed it: "The Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design" to set it apart from past and current ID thought. I suppose I could call it SIID Theory to set it apart also. Don't forget the burning question I posed:

What is the problem with someone attempting to bring the Creationist to a point of agreeing with 90% of evolution Theory?

Have fun with it :)
Glenn

Optimus

09-27-2005, 09:38 AM

Then, why don't you just state your theories (in answer to the questions of a few posters here) without expounding on them? Give us a brief sentence or two about each? This will diminish the circumlocution your last few posts have been dripping with.

reph

09-27-2005, 09:53 AM

Don't forget the burning question I posed:

What is the problem with someone attempting to bring the Creationist to a point of agreeing with 90% of evolution Theory?
I don't know of any problem with it. I think you've set yourself a big task. One hard part is enlightening creationists on what evolutionary theory does and doesn't say. There's a lot of misunderstanding out there.

Just curious: do you use the incident in the Bible where a man did selective breeding of livestock? I forget the details, but a concordance search for "ringstraked" should uncover it.

Birol

09-27-2005, 10:12 AM

No one has asked you to publish your book in this thread.

Many individuals who have written books on a wide-variety of topics publicly present their research and expound on theories and beliefs either through speeches, presentations, or, in this modern age, in forums and hosted chats. Writers do readings and often make the first chapter of their books or selected excerpts publicly available on their websites.

None of these things are seen as giving the books away, but are done to demonstrate the author's ability to discuss a topic and to increase interest in the books and therefore to increase sales. Although you seem like a very articulate individual, your responses here have done nothing to convince me that you have anything more to add to the discussion of intelligent design other than what you have said here.

You have failed to make me want to know more about your theories and hypothesis or the methods you used to arrive at your conclusions because at this time, I do not believe your book will provide any better response than you have here.

Please, prove me wrong. Respond to some of the direct questions individuals have asked you with more than the same, rehashed post regarding your credentials and the reasons why you undertook this task.
Even if you don't convince me that ID or creationism are solid, scientific theories, whet my curiosity to know more about your beliefs and viewpoints. Trust me, that's not a difficult thing to do.

brinkett

09-27-2005, 05:21 PM

Interpretation is difficult because narrative at the time these books were written didn't take an interior point of view. We aren't told what characters thought, only what they said.
You'd figure a book about God would be written in omniscient.

Pat~

09-27-2005, 05:22 PM

I don't know of any problem with it. I think you've set yourself a big task. One hard part is enlightening creationists on what evolutionary theory does and doesn't say. There's a lot of misunderstanding out there.

Just curious: do you use the incident in the Bible where a man did selective breeding of livestock? I forget the details, but a concordance search for "ringstraked" should uncover it.

The story concerns Jacob (Genesis 31).

NeuroFizz

09-27-2005, 05:24 PM

I guess no one picked up on the subtlety in my earlier post (my problem, I’m sure), so I’ll forward it again.

If the Intelligent Designer is all powerful, can he* make a rock so heavy he, himself, can’t lift it?

*Substitute she if you wish

This somewhat stale, sacrilegious joke points out an interesting conundrum. No matter how you answer it, yes or no, it draws fault in the concept of “all powerful.” So, from a faith point-of-view, we can appreciate “all powerful,” but from logical, rational, and scientific points-of-view, it can’t be reconciled with any known processes in our world; physical, chemical or biological. Because of this, an “all powerful” being can’t be used to explain our currently accepted physical, chemical or biological theories, while calling it "science."

The Scientific Method is a construct of man** that is used to explain the properties and phenomena of the real world. Religions are also constructs of man (I’m not talking about the inspiration, but the actual religions of today***, and this is my opinion) that are used for higher order things: explaining the unexplainable, giving hope to a sometimes hopeless existence, setting guidelines for individual and group behavior, providing a philosophical framework for our existence, and things like that. Many religious beliefs can’t fit with the Scientific Method, and science can’t directly serve the list of functions of our religions. Why try to achieve something that is as apples and oranges as it can get? Both have very different, but sweet tastes. And both have served mankind extremely well in their respective spheres. Try to extend one into the other, and it can erode the sanctity of the invaded sphere.

**This is NOT the gender specific use of man
***Personally, I distinguish between faith and religion

It was just pointed out to me that the original joke is attributed to George Carlin. Thanks, Dave.

Aconite

09-27-2005, 05:33 PM

Try to extend one into the other, and it can erode the sanctity of the invaded sphere.
Beyond that, I am a writer. I have respect for the power of correct naming. Calling religion "science," or science "religion," does not make them so, but dilutes the power of both names.

Pat~

09-27-2005, 05:50 PM

I thought that might be the answer: God knew everything in advance. That's the modern (since Aquinas, at least) conception of God, but do we know that the ancient Hebrews had the same understanding? God's personality (for want of a better word) changes from one end of the O.T. to the other. In Genesis 1 and 2, he's clearly powerful, but I'm not sure he knows what will happen. This early in the O.T., God is more "human" than later. He can make mistakes. At some point, which you can probably identify because you know more Bible than I do, he decides that creating humanity was a mistake and plans to destroy everyone. Then he changes his mind.

Interpretation is difficult because narrative at the time these books were written didn't take an interior point of view. We aren't told what characters thought, only what they said.

Whether or not the Hebrews had a certain understanding of God wouldn't change who God is. God is ascribed human traits (and I think 'personality' is definitely something God has), but He isn't human, of course. Only humans can make mistakes; throughout the Bible God is sovereign and wise, and He is the same, cover to cover, even when He expresses frustration and 'regret'. The fact that He created mankind with the ability to choose to sin was no mistake, because in His sovereignty He uses even evil to accomplish His purposes. God has emotions, though, and the passage you were referring to concerns the period of time right before the flood...but there are several other times where God seems to throw up his hands in disgust at mankind (eg. Sodom and Gomorrah, and repeatedly with the Israelite nation). (It's like those days when one might feel like screaming 'why did I ever have kids?!) But even more frequently He proclaims His love for mankind, regardless. The whole book of Hosea is a proclamation of His love for his idolatrous people; it's just beautiful to read. And even in Genesis, He is not tentative. He sets forth His covenant with Abraham, one which points to the promise fulfilled in the NT with the coming of Christ. And though He expresses His anger from time to time, His covenant of love stands firm throughout.

pconsidine

09-27-2005, 07:04 PM

I'm puzzled. I thought the RC Church declared evolution was not inconsistant with the teachings of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, in 1950, did state that evolution isn't necessarily at odds with Catholic dogma. However, there are the following caveats (as explained by Father John Lombardi here (http://www.emmitsburg.net/grotto/father_jack/2002/catholicism_evolution.htm)):

Catholics are free to believe in a theistic evolution, if:

God is seen as directly creating and infusing the soul of Adam and Eve;
Adam & Eve are seen as historical, individual human beings-and not as a "symbol" or group of peoples, which is "polygenism," ("many origins"), which was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1950; and
The evolutionary scheme does not deny Original Sin."

Essentially, Catholics are free to believe evolution - to a point. It's fine to believe man evolved from pre-existing living matter, but one must still concede that the first Man and Woman (meaning the first homo sapiens) were the Adam and Eve named in the Bible, in order to be a good Catholic. One must also believe that mankind is what it is because of the introduction, by God, of an immortal soul.

Not deal breakers, necessarily, but certainly debatable topics.

Aconite

09-27-2005, 07:20 PM

Pope Pius XII, in 1950, did state that evolution isn't necessarily at odds with Catholic dogma.
In the papal encyclical "Humani Generis," in case anyone's wondering (though I'm not sure it was 1950; it was in the 50s, though). For anyone coming into this fresh: Evolution has been taught in parochial schools for a long time without much controversy. In 1996, Pope John Paul II also stated, in a papal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." Birth control, abortion, and clerical celibacy are much bigger issues for the RC Church than evolution.

However, there are the following caveats (as explained by Father John Lombardi here (http://www.emmitsburg.net/grotto/father_jack/2002/catholicism_evolution.htm):
Again, for those coming in fresh: There are more caveats than given here, and Fr. Lombardi's interpretations of what the caveats mean aren't universally accepted among all Catholics and/or doctrinal experts.

Essentially, Catholics are free to believe evolution - to a point. It's fine to believe man evolved from pre-existing living matter, but one must still concede that the first Man and Woman (meaning the first homo sapiens) were the Adam and Eve named in the Bible, in order to be a good Catholic.
There's debate about that. There's even debate about whether or not "HG" claims you must believe in a single pair of origin.

One must also believe that mankind is what it is because of the introduction, by God, of an immortal soul.
I was taught something somewhat different: That you must believe the soul comes completely and wholly from God.

Not deal breakers, necessarily, but certainly debatable topics.
Fair enough.

pconsidine

09-27-2005, 07:25 PM

To flip it around (and play Devil's Advocate), what good would it do to just leave the question unanswered? It would always sitting in the background like a 500 pound gorilla begging for attention. I think it's an answer that will always be sought because it's in human nature to be inquisitive.

I love a good Devil's Advocate. :)

You're absolutely right - humanity simply can't stand not knowing. As long as there is a single question left unanswered, someone will be trying to find the answer.

But what's interesting - and relevant to this topic - is that Science has a degree of acceptable ignorance. Ask a cosmologist what came before the Big Bang and he might well tell you that there is no "before the Big Bang." His scope of inquiry is limited to our current universe. From that perspective, "before this universe" is a meaningless topic.

Not to say that there are no scientists thinking about it. Kip Thorne presented a really interesting hypothesis about how the universe could have started itself. Some people have presented the idea that antimatter is actually normal matter moving backwards in time. Thorne expanded that thought to a universe where some small bit of antimatter travelled back in time from some point in the very early universe and formed the seed that spawned the Big Bang.

But that kind of speculation isn't normally thought of as much more than fun physics parlor games.

So much fun stuff to think about. But God knows it doesn't change how I live my life. I can't imagine that it ought to, either.

ResearchGuy

09-27-2005, 07:44 PM

...Ask a cosmologist what came before the Big Bang and he might well tell you that there is no "before the Big Bang." ...
Only if he (or she) has been out of the loop for decades. That whole issue of what came before is very actively discussed and analyzed by cosmologists. There is no one agreed-upon answer, but there are plenty of models. Try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22what+came+before+the+big+bang%22+cosmology&btnG=Google+Search for starters, or pick up any of the recent books on cosmology. For example, Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos -- this snippet is on p. 286: "... the inflationary bang is best thought of as an event that the preexisting universe experienced." (Emphasis in original.) I suspect that no reputable cosmologist would say that there was nothing before the big bang.

--Ken

ResearchGuy

09-27-2005, 07:55 PM

Pope Pius XII, in 1950, did state that evolution isn't necessarily at odds with Catholic dogma. ...
Pardon me if this has already been pointed out, but one does not have to go back to 1950. See (for example -- the document is posted in many places):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM, MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION, Pope John Paul II From the Vatican, October 22, 1996

In part:

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

--Ken

NicoleJLeBoeuf

09-27-2005, 08:10 PM

Whether or not the Hebrews had a certain understanding of God wouldn't change who God is.But the conversation concerned depictions of God in the Bible, did it not? And how they vary from one book to another? And how we can or can't reconcile them considering what we know about the authors of the material?

If y'all are going to argue about what God really is, y'all are going to come up against the same problems the ID'ers have: faith, but no observable data. Or, rather, no common understanding of what the observable data is.

What's written in the Bible can only tell us what the Bible's authors thought God was.

I am reminded of someone who, when presented with the idea of religions that pre-date Christianity, laughed and said, "But nothing's 'pre-Christian', because God was here before everything!" I got tongue-tied just trying to enumerate the questions she was begging.

pconsidine

09-27-2005, 08:49 PM

Pardon me if this has already been pointed out, but one does not have to go back to 1950.

Ken,

One ought to go back to 1950, though. For one, John Paul's encyclical didn't really represent anything new compared to what Pius XII had already said. For two, it makes the Catholic Church look slightly less dense if one cites the example from 100 years after Darwin instead of the one 150 years after. ;)

As far as cosmology's current state, I guess I'm the one who's out of the loop. But would you agree that there's still a precedent for allowable ignorance in science? That acknowledging things we don't know doesn't stop people from investigating? That's all I was pointing out there.

ResearchGuy

09-27-2005, 10:04 PM

Ken,

One ought to go back to 1950, though. For one, John Paul's encyclical didn't really represent anything new compared to what Pius XII had already said....
I disagree. The "something new" was precisely the point of the paragraph I quoted. But folks can read it in context and draw their own conclusions.

--Ken

pconsidine

09-27-2005, 10:13 PM

I don't think that the extension of the idea that evolution wasn't incompatible with Catholicism to include the idea that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" leads to any substantive change in the relationship between Catholics and evolution.

However, as you say, let each judge for herself. To that end:

Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950 (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm)

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, John Paul II, 1996 (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm)

Greer

09-27-2005, 10:14 PM

I have taken far more science courses than any medical school requires: General - Organic - Physical Chemistry, Graduate courses in Mammalogy, Embryology, Physiology, Anatomy, Heredity, Evolution, Histology, Pharmacology, Immunology, Pathogenic Microbiology, Biology of Cancer, etc., etc, etc., Physics through Medical Physics, and countless courses in History, Psychology, and Education.

Um, how many degrees do you have? According to you, you've taken enough courses for several PhD's in multiple disciplines. Yet, your website says you are a masters student in "adult education." Regardless, perhaps you should have taken a few classes in logic, cultural theory, and critical thinking skills, since your posts certainly don't demonstrate a heck of a lot of any of it.

ResearchGuy

09-27-2005, 10:22 PM

...would you agree that there's still a precedent for allowable ignorance in science? That acknowledging things we don't know doesn't stop people from investigating? ...
Science is always a work in progress, although at some point it is only details that are in question, not fundamental principles. Evolution is such a fundamental principle--so fundamental that it has been said that biology makes no sense except in the light of evolution--but details abound and many remain unsettled and controversial as new evidence and new analysis accumulate.

--Ken

reph

09-27-2005, 11:22 PM

Whether or not the Hebrews had a certain understanding of God wouldn't change who God is.
But it would influence the way they thought and the way they wrote. I'm questioning how appropriate it is to use assumptions from modern Christianity when interpreting an ancient Middle Eastern document.

reph

09-27-2005, 11:32 PM

Essentially, Catholics are free to believe evolution - to a point. It's fine to believe man evolved from pre-existing living matter....
That would mean disbelieving what Genesis says about Adam's components: dirt and water. Do Catholics and Protestants fight about this?

What happens if you can't make yourself believe what your church says you must believe?

Aconite

09-27-2005, 11:33 PM

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.*
Ken, was there a footnote to go with that * up there? *g*

Pat~

09-28-2005, 12:01 AM

But the conversation concerned depictions of God in the Bible, did it not? And how they vary from one book to another? And how we can or can't reconcile them considering what we know about the authors of the material?

This variation was a claim by one of the posters here, but I would have to respectfully disagree. I'm no expert, but I have read it in its entirety six times in the last six years, and have yet to find such a variation in His character, regardless of book or human instrument that penned it. In fact, this consistency is one of the things that supports my faith in the claim the Bible itself makes (that it is, in fact, inspired by God--2 Timothy 3:16). Note I said "faith." Belief in God is not a science; that doesn't make it unreasonable, however. Reasonable faith demands evidence, though not necessarily proof.

If y'all are going to argue about what God really is, y'all are going to come up against the same problems the ID'ers have: faith, but no observable data. Or, rather, no common understanding of what the observable data is.
I agree with you that it involves faith; but there is also the written historical record to consider--not just the Bible, but other sources (Josephus, for example). I was not eyewitness to the Civil War, but I do have faith that it happened based on written documentation. In the same way, I can decide to believe the Bible when considering the evidence of supportive documentation.

What's written in the Bible can only tell us what the Bible's authors thought God was.
Are you sure? Can you prove that it couldn't be inspired by God? If there is a God, and if He created human beings, is it so inconceivable that He might want to communicate with them? That He might even love them?

I am reminded of someone who, when presented with the idea of religions that pre-date Christianity, laughed and said, "But nothing's 'pre-Christian', because God was here before everything!" I got tongue-tied just trying to enumerate the questions she was begging.
Not sure what I posted that reminded you of that comment, but I think we're in agreement here that that statement raises a few questions! :)

pconsidine

09-28-2005, 12:04 AM

That would mean disbelieving what Genesis says about Adam's components: dirt and water. Do Catholics and Protestants fight about this?

What happens if you can't make yourself believe what your church says you must believe?

Reph,

I'm merely speaking as one who understands Catholic dogma, not necessarily a follower of it. The differences between Catholicism and various sects of Protestantism are often minor, but very deeply held. Whether Adam was truly made of mud is probably one of them. (There are sects of Christianity that do take a very literal view of everything in the Bible. They would probably profess that Adam was in fact made of mud.)

As far as what you do if you don't believe what your church says you must? That's a whole other can of worms. Martin Luther founded his own church. I don't think I'd go that far, though.

ResearchGuy

09-28-2005, 12:35 AM

Ken, was there a footnote to go with that * up there? *g*
It was a link (I removed the link but failed to remove the asterisk). Click on the URL I provided for the source and find the asterisk (with link) there.

--Ken

ResearchGuy

09-28-2005, 12:45 AM

...Can you prove that it couldn't be inspired by God?...
Can you prove that it could not have been compiled, edited ("redacted"), and revised (and reedited, supplemented, and sometimes miscopied) by people, free of supernatural intervention? Can you prove that gods are not social and psychological constructs of human beings seeking to explain the universe and the phenomena they see around and experience within themselves?

Abundant evidence testifies to the Bible being an entirely human product and to gods being entirely human concepts. But it is not socially acceptible in American society to profess acceptance of that evidence. The pressure is to conform -- or to appear to conform -- to some recognized form of the conventional myths.

--Ken

robeiae

09-28-2005, 12:55 AM

But it is not socially acceptible in American society to profess acceptance of that evidence. The pressure is to conform -- or to appear to conform -- to some recognized form of the conventional myths.
What is it they say about perception and reality?

Regardless, I find just the opposite of this to be true in my personal everyday interaction with others (that could be largely a function of where I live), though your point is consistent with public/government/political personalities.

Rob

Aconite

09-28-2005, 01:07 AM

I don't think that the extension of the idea that evolution wasn't incompatible with Catholicism to include the idea that evolution is "more than a hypothesis" leads to any substantive change in the relationship between Catholics and evolution.
The idea that the sky is blue because angels paint it every morning may not be incompatible with Catholicism, either, but it's another thing entirely if the pope states that, after through examination, it appears to be fact. That's why histories of the RC Church and evolution quote both documents.

ResearchGuy

09-28-2005, 01:08 AM

...I find just the opposite of this to be true in my personal everyday interaction with others...
The devil is in the details -- in this case, the interactions. The presumption in this society is that people (even if inactive in a church or synagogue or mosque) profess some sort of faith, at least give it lip service. Those who are assertive about their faith (proselytizing in the workplace, for example) may be poorly received.

In any event, can you imagine a professed atheist being elected to so much as dogcatcher anywhere in the U.S.?

--Ken

robeiae

09-28-2005, 01:16 AM

In any event, can you imagine a professed atheist being elected to so much as dogcatcher anywhere in the U.S.?
Yes, and all such places are within driving distance of Alcatraz. (kidding, sort of...)

Rob :)

Pat~

09-28-2005, 01:17 AM

Can you prove that it could not have been compiled, edited ("redacted"), and revised (and reedited, supplemented, and sometimes miscopied) by people, free of supernatural intervention? Can you prove that gods are not social and psychological constructs of human beings seeking to explain the universe and the phenomena they see around and experience within themselves?

--Ken

No, I wouldn't attempt to logically 'prove' faith. My point was that no matter what you believe, your presuppositions are based on some degree of faith. In this instance, she expressed the belief that what's written in the Bible could only tell us "what the Bible's authors thought God was."

pconsidine

09-28-2005, 02:04 AM

The idea that the sky is blue because angels paint it every morning may not be incompatible with Catholicism, either, but it's another thing entirely if the pope states that, after through examination, it appears to be fact. That's why histories of the RC Church and evolution quote both documents.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you're making. I don't believe either statement indicates that a Catholic ought to believe in evolution, which to me qualifies as a substantive change in the relation of Catholics to evolution. I imagine histories that cite both documents do so because not to do so would be bad history, not because the second substantially alters the first.

Just my 2¢.

Aconite

09-28-2005, 02:30 AM

The first document basically states that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine. The second states that there's good evidence it's fact.

reph

09-28-2005, 03:41 AM

Yes, and all such places are within driving distance of Alcatraz.
Rob, Rob! Boating distance!

reph

09-28-2005, 03:44 AM

Can you prove that it couldn't be inspired by God?
From outside the system of belief that says it was, that's not where the burden of proof is.

Peggy

09-28-2005, 06:26 AM

My book is also a challenge to my fellow scientists to change the way their work is presented. Translate it for the masses and we will stop a lot of the controversy before it even gets started.
I agree that it would be great if "the masses" got a better view of what present-day scientists are working on. It isn't an easy problem to overcome, though, and I'd be interested in hearing what you propose.

From what I've seen, there are a lot of sources of good science news available for the "informed layperson", that is, a person who is interested in science and remembers the basics, at least through their high school courses. Such a person can read New Scientist or Scientific American to learn the latest research results.

The problem is that the "masses", in general (at least the "masses" I know), aren't particularly interested in science unless there is some sort of "sensational" result. They read the headline and blurb in their local newspaper or see it on the 11:00 news. Usually there is little more than a one sentence summary and maybe one short quote from a scientist.

For the "masses" to really understand the latest research they need to know the underlying assumptions shared by scientists. In biology that means a general understanding of DNA and genes, the basic structure of the cell, (back on topic) evolution and many other things. It's not that scientists don't want people to understand and share the excitement they have for their work, it's more that they aren't very good at explaining all the underlying assumptions in such a way that Joe and Jane Public don't get bored and stop reading (or watching). Unfortunately that means that many people get their science "information" from entertainment, especially TV and movies.

It seems to me that the real hole is in science journalism. The job of scientists is to do science, and that doesn't necessarily come along with the ability to write (or otherwise communicate) well to non-scientists, particularly those that forgot all the basics as soon as they graduated from high school. Journalists on the other hand have the specific job of reporting recent events for their readers. Part of their job is writing in a way that their readers understand. Of course that means that the journalists need to have a pretty solid understanding of the science themselves. Ideally they sould be the translators between scientists and the general public. (I don't mean to say that the problem is with all journalists; there are some dedicated science journalists that do an excellent job).

That brings us to the biggest problem; the poor state of science education and corresponding low science literacy rate in the US. There was a recent study that showed that most adults didn't really understand what DNA or molecules are and less than half know how long it takes the earth to travel around the sun. It is really hard to explain the importance of a scientific project "to the masses", when the masses don't even have a grounding in the basics.

I leave off actually identifying the intelligence because that would tread on religious convictions. I am prohibited from doing that because I haven't found a scientific basis for it yet. The 99.99% remainder of my ID Theory does have a scientific basis.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "theory" of "intelligent design" that I've read basically proposes that current evolutionary theory can't explain the development of every cellular and anatomical structure, and that these "gaps" in evolutionary theory must be filled by supernatural intervention. The problem is that "supernatural intervention" is untestable (as has been pointed out by several people in this thread). Either you believe in it or you don't. On the other hand, a real scientific theory (such as the theory of evolution) presents testable hypotheses. Scientific theories are modified and updated as facts are accumulated and the theories' predictions are tested. How does your proposed theory of "Intentional and Intelligent Design" make the supernatural testable?

In addition to introducing essentially "anti-science" into the classroom (i.e., "anything not completely explained by current scientific theory is explained by the supernatural"), putting "intelligent design" or "teaching the controversy" on the curriculum takes away valuable teaching time from the basics, and has the potential to give students the sense that science can be based on your personal set of beliefs, rather than having a basis in facts*. It also (wrongly) gives the impression that there is controversy over the theory of evolution in the scientific community. The only controversy is between people that want science to be taught in the science classroom, and people who want to introduce religion (and it IS religion, even if you don't name the "designer"), because they can't reconcile the scientific facts with their own personal religious beliefs.

What is the problem with someone attempting to bring the Creationist to a point of agreeing with 90% of evolution Theory? I am really really skeptical that there can be any way to make a "creationist" (someone who believes the literal description in Genesis of the creation of the earth and all life in 7 days) and current evolutionary theory. For one, there is no way that evolution could take place in such a short time.

Have there been any published reviews of your work by either theologians or scientists? I would be interested in knowing what the experts say.

*It's unfortunate that some of the vocal proponents of "intelligent design" get their biology facts wrong. To someone who knows the biology, it makes it seem that the purpose of teaching "intelligent design" is to propagate ignorance.

Sorry for the long post, but the issue of poor science literacy is one of my personal bugbears.

Pat~

09-28-2005, 06:28 AM

From outside the system of belief that says it was, that's not where the burden of proof is.

But I would contend that a 'system of belief' ultimately doesn't have a 'burden of proof.' I can reason with another person about it, even discuss it at length, but there is no burden of proof to something that ultimately hinges on faith. Likewise, I don't consider atheists as having a burden of proof simply because their faith is outside my system of belief.

ResearchGuy

09-28-2005, 06:58 AM

I sometimes wonder if the ID-In-Schools advocates should be wary of what they wish for, as they just might get it.

Picture the spectacle as teachers explain that ID has not produced a single peer-reviewed scientific article, has not made a single testable prediction based on the theory, has not ever scientifically (rather than rhetorically or emotionally) contradicted a single scrap of scientific evidence that supports evolution, or offered even one measure by which the theory of "Intelligent Design" could be disproven (a fundamental element of a scientific theory -- there must be the potential for falsification or it is not science).

Just as the theory of evolution would be subject to analysis (as it should be!), so too, now, would the so-called theory of intelligent design, and by extension (as ID is unambiguously rooted in creationism) the underlying creation myths. Thus, religion would be fair game for scientific deconstruction in the classroom.

Ponder, also, the sparks that would fly as the backwards design of the human eye is explored -- a design that is entirely logical when understood in its evolutionary context, but nonsensical as a representative of "intelligent design." (There are other critters that have eyes not so mal-designed.) Consider the classroom discussions of the genetic defects ("features?") that lead to such developmental disabilities as Down syndrome and much, much worse. Perhaps the children could tour a hospital for persons with profound mental retardation, much of which is congenital, seeing, for example, full-grown adults with an IQ of less than a dozen who think that they produce their own brown finger paint and that their caretakers are fair game for assault at any time, or an assortment of malformations so frightening that the victims must be kept from public view. Intelligently designed misery?

But then, maybe the weird design features and programmed behaviors of living things (sometimes, if not often, utterly incommensurate with any notion of deliberate intelligent design but entirely explainable via the mechanisms of evolution) do constitute falsification -- not that the IDers would posit such.

Oncogenes: intelligently designed? How about flu viruses? HIV? The genetic condition that leads to sickle cell anemia (a truly horrible disease) -- insane to consider intelligently designed, but logically explainable in the evolutionary framework (and explained in pretty much every textbook on genetics or evolutionary biology, I suspect).

The mind reels at the prospects of such discussions in the classroom.

--Ken

reph

09-28-2005, 07:10 AM

But I would contend that a 'system of belief' ultimately doesn't have a 'burden of proof.' I can reason with another person about it, even discuss it at length, but there is no burden of proof to something that ultimately hinges on faith. Likewise, I don't consider atheists as having a burden of proof simply because their faith is outside my system of belief.
I posted what I did because you replied to another poster by asking whether he or she could prove that the Bible wasn't inspired by God. Well, no; but that poster hadn't made a positive assertion that it wasn't so inspired. If you make a positive assertion that it was, it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of your assertion. Otherwise, those who disbelieve it are free to disbelieve everything that follows from it as a premise, such as that God created Adam from mud. (After all, we don't have any independent evidence that might help. Only the Bible tells the story. Since human bodies aren't made of mud these days, the story is hard for people to reconcile with their everyday experience.) It isn't up to the other person to prove that people wrote the Bible by themselves. That's what I mean about a burden of proof. This point concerns the logic of proof, not – anyway, not directly – whether what the Bible says is true or false.

You don't have to prove that the Bible was divinely inspired or that all its stories really happened in order to believe that it was and they did, but it's important to distinguish between belief and knowledge. I mean, if you believe something by faith, there's no basis for jumping from "I believe it" to "I'm certain it's true."

Epicman

09-28-2005, 07:39 AM

I will briefly defend my academic credentials:

"General - Organic - Physical Chemistry, Graduate courses in Mammalogy, Embryology, Physiology, Anatomy, Heredity, Evolution, Histology, Pharmacology, Immunology, Pathogenic Microbiology, Biology of Cancer, etc., etc, etc., Physics through Medical Physics, and countless courses in History, Psychology, and Education."

The General through Physical Chemistry courses are undergrad and consist of 24 credit hours. The rest emphasized my graduate coursework and consist of 36 graduate hours in Biology courses that are listed the others are supportive coursework and electives. While enough for a Master of Science degree I changed my degree program - due to my physical disability and change of plans - to a Master of Adult Education. If I had claimed a Master of Science I would have ended my eligibility for the grants I use to pay for my education. My working (wage earning ability) ended when my disability began so maintaining eligibility for the grants was critical. Since most of the science courses will not transfer to my Adult Education degree I have many more graduate credit hours than a typical Master Degree candidate.

Greer I am unaware from which country you are from but after the awarding of a Master of Science or Arts degree here in the US the PhD track consists of getting three PhD faculty members to sponser you, one to mentor you, and you spend - typically - a few years in research and work leading to the candidate's construction and then defense of a dissertation. Some PhD degrees, like in medicine or dentistry, require instead much more coursework. While it is true that many of the graduate courses are the same ones that a medical student would take in the first two years of a medical school curriculum, it is the rotations through the specialties that gain the designation of MD (somewhat equivalent to PhD although a combination MD/PhD is possible at some institutions.)

As you can see I am far from the equivalent of "several PhD's" as I have never considered a dissertation. I will be able to claim two Masters, one in Science (Biology) and the other in Arts (Adult Education.)

I defended my credentials Greer not because I have any respect for you. Your post indicates that you are a spiteful and degrading individual as it is mean-spirited in the extreme. You need courses in morals and values.

I defend it for the rest of you who may have focused on the statement rather than the purpose and intent of Greer's post.

Pat~

09-28-2005, 08:15 AM

I posted what I did because you replied to another poster by asking whether he or she could prove that the Bible wasn't inspired by God. Well, no; but that poster hadn't made a positive assertion that it wasn't so inspired.

Probably just a difference of opinion, but I interpreted this statement to be a positive assertion that the Bible wasn't inspired:

Quote:
What's written in the Bible can only tell us what the Bible's authors thought God was.

If you make a positive assertion that it was, it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of your assertion.

I'd have to say I disagree with that...if it were a matter of mathematics, then yes, a positive assertion would need a demonstrable proof. But belief systems are ultimately a matter of faith, not fact (though they take available facts into consideration). They are positive assertions of conviction, (which others are free to disbelieve).

Otherwise, those who disbelieve it are free to disbelieve everything that follows from it as a premise, such as that God created Adam from mud. (After all, we don't have any independent evidence that might help. Only the Bible tells the story. Since human bodies aren't made of mud these days, the story is hard for people to reconcile with their everyday experience.)

The Biblical account mentions that man's body was formed out of the dust of the earth when God breathed into it. I would agree that this, being a miracle, would be hard to reconcile with our everyday experience, (though man's body does return to dust after death.) I do believe in the miraculous, though I can understand why many people are skeptical. Miracles are rare experiences.

You don't have to prove that the Bible was divinely inspired or that all its stories really happened in order to believe that it was and they did, but it's important to distinguish between belief and knowledge. I mean, if you believe something by faith, there's no basis for jumping from "I believe it" to "I'm certain it's true."

There's no purely factual basis, I agree. Knowledge is the collection of experiences and facts I know, in this case, about the Bible, history, science, etc. But 'belief' is always knowledge + faith, regardless of your belief system.

Greer

09-28-2005, 08:31 AM

I defended my credentials Greer not because I have any respect for you. Your post indicates that you are a spiteful and degrading individual as it is mean-spirited in the extreme. You need courses in morals and values.

Not meant to be "mean-spirited in the extreme," (if you think that was extreme you REALLY haven't engaged with other academics about your argument) just frustration boiling over at evasive posts that demonstrate little to no attempt to address direct questions and, frankly, give little reason for anybody to believe you have a handle on the larger issues. (Incidentally the "multiple PhD's" comment is of a type commonly known as "hyperbole" and not meant to be taken at face value). Your extrapolation from my post that I am a "spiteful and degrading individual" is in itself mean-spirited, as well as unfair and ridiculous (and certainly not very Christian). I never once attacked you personally, though I did take issue with the logic and level of critical thinking shown in your posts, for good reason.

Frustrated, too, because I do believe in a higher power -- very strongly -- and dearly wish an intellectually nuanced, non-reductive, fully aware conversation could occur. This doesn't happen when people who claim to be experts and, of all things, unifiers, refuse to engage in any kind of meaningful debate that might actually bring about a "coming together," instead taking the opportunity to hawk their books.

I'm sorry if you see this as mean-spirited. But if you really want to get involved in the evolutionary debate on a bigger stage than writing boards, you're going to hear a lot worse than this. They're going to question your credentials -- a lot harder than I did. They're going to pick apart your statements -- a lot more closely than I did. And they certainly aren't going to be doing because they are "mean-spirited," "spiteful," or "degrading."

reph

09-28-2005, 10:17 AM

Probably just a difference of opinion, but I interpreted this statement to be a positive assertion that the Bible wasn't inspired:

Quote: What's written in the Bible can only tell us what the Bible's authors thought God was.
I took it to mean the ancient Hebrews could write only within the limitations imposed by their culture's mode of thought and its literary conventions. They may not have believed God was omniscient; I'm no religious historian, but I think that idea came later, possibly introduced by medieval theologians. Consequently, I'm not at all confident that the story in Genesis 2 must be interpreted as you interpret it.

I'd have to say I disagree with that...if it were a matter of mathematics, then yes, a positive assertion would need a demonstrable proof. But belief systems are ultimately a matter of faith, not fact...
Then it follows that they don't have to bear the same relation to reality as ordinary beliefs do?

(Here I skip over the remarks about miracles because I don't believe they occur.)

Knowledge is the collection of experiences and facts I know, in this case, about the Bible, history, science, etc. But 'belief' is always knowledge + faith, regardless of your belief system.
That's not what I understand the word "knowledge" to mean. There can be a false belief, but there can't, by definition, be false knowledge.

Epicman

09-28-2005, 11:35 AM

My first televised appearance will be Thursday - I'll have my transcripts, degrees, and other credentials with me. The same goes for signings, any interviews, and lectures I present. When in the presence of faceless others, as in this forum, it is much more difficult to provide tangible evidence of credentials. You wish to debate something that I am not debateing: I have stated many times that I support the vast majority of evolution Theory. I have also stated that I support the Creation event as written in the Bible. If you want to know or even debate my ideas for bringing about a joining of the sides then know this first: I can best be described as a "Creavolutionist."

Since I support the vast majority of evolution Theory and I am a Creationist I will work from the assumption that what everyone wishes to debate how I could possibly join the sides in agreement. That is going to require a lot of background and basics - that is why I wrote the book. If you want to get into my SIID Theory (Scientific Theory of Intentional and Intelligent Design) and my Theory of Human Evolution then you also have to understand that my fresh new approach is to present it so the masses can understand and not allow for a mistranslation which will bring misconceptions which will bring controversy. That would just be perpetuating what has been happening in this debate for many many years (or as someone else stated in this thread: "over and over and over again") - my solution is to present them in a universal language (layperson) to affect a universal understanding. So to to toss out my Theories here on this board would be counter-productive to the entire purpose of my new approach - would it not?

Let's say I toss out SIID Theory number 1 right now...

Aconite is going to say this, Greer is going to say that, reph, research guy, and all the other 30-40 plus (I pulled that range out of the air, lets not waste time debateing that - it's a petty point to argue) lets just say a bunch - OK. You are going to question how I arrived at this or that and I will have to cut and paste a chapter or two of my book to defend it. Otherwise the mistranslations, misconcetions, and controversies will fly about.

Once we have all these mistranslations, misconceptions, and controversies coming at me at a speed that I would have to devote 24-7 to just this thread to answer them all. And what of the lurkers? There have been nearly 1,000 views in the last 2 days (I know that counts the posters too - before someone wants to debate that - the number of posts in the last two days is miniscule in comparison to the number of views.)

I will have only added to the controversy and debate that I have set out to solve and my Theory will be buried in a heap of opinion too deep that an extraction of the original - and any meaningful critique will be lost.

So what do I do? I begin in my book by giving the layperson the definitions of the simple terminology to be used throughout my book. Some will find the first chapter boring but it is necessary if I am to gain an understanding of the masses. It is necessary for anyone reading the book to also gain the understanding of the context. (Keep in mind that I am not quoting my book word for word and am paraphrasing) I use examples such as two lions one with a lame foot. I explain that it is not necessary to explain how the lameness happened only that it exists. I go on to explain that while observing these lions hunt it is noticed that the lame lion is slower than the other and therefore gets only the slower and therefore weaker of the selected prey.

Do you see where I am going with this? Many of you, particularly the evolutionists, would go in depth into the lameness issue, the reasons for the slower and weaker prey, etc. This is not necessary to convey the basic point. I'll go further...

For some reason, it can be a drought, a temperature increase, etc. (and it doesnt really matter) there is a decline in the prey population. With this decline it is noticed that the first to die off will be the weaker and therefore slower of the prey. This affects the lame lion moreso than the other because now he has to work harder to capture his prey. The same conditions that caused the decline in the prey also will affect the lame lion to a greater degree than the other. What happens is that the lame lion will grow weaker and slower until it will eventually die. Lets assume that this lame lion was born with the defect in its foot. This could mean that the lame lion could possibly pass this defect on to its offspring. If the above example occurred while the lion was still fairly young the chances that it had any offspring at all are fairly small.

Can you see what I am doing with this example? It is necessary to deliver the idea of natural selection in this manner if you examine the make-up of the audience. Diehard Creationists will look at NONE of evolution Theory for one reason - and it is a widespread misconception: "Darwin said that man came from apes." Many people actually believe that is the entirety of evolution Theory! A couple of chapters of my book are devoted to dispelling misconceptions such as this one. You will not get some of these people to even listen to anything if you don't first get the misconceptions out of the way. Even further I now have to show Biblical support for this idea that I just presented with the lion example.

While I'll not quote my book word for word here I'll just assume most know of the house upon the rock and the house upon the sand and the faith/mountain parables. In a nutshell weak perishes and strong survives and the stronger one's faith the greater the possibilities. While non-believers dont give a crap about Biblical support the Creationists do so now I have tied Biblical support to the natural selection example above. (I go into far greater detail in the book using quotations, etc.)

Was my example (the lion part) scientifically supported? Absolutely. And rather than nitpick at the simplicity remember the audience. I could have reverse translated it and wrote a hundred pages on all the complexities involved. I can just see five posts from now where one wishes to debate the way lions hunt. The way lions hunt is not pertinent! Using illustrative writing to get one to picture in the mind the point I am trying to get across is the point. It is also the point to show how it does not contradict what is in the Bible.

Remember: "Come Together: Creation and Evolution Joined" I have to address the Bible and science.

I hope this gives you a better idea of the purpose of my book and why I will not just throw my Theories about without the proper translation and context. Someone will soon as many have already taken my offer from before. Hopefully enough people will have read the book in order to discuss it from an informed perspective rather than from one of ignorance.

Throw your ideas of ID out the window - I use the terms only as a politically neutral method to convey the Theory.

Before the mud slinging starts I will explain that I have a TV appearance and a book signing to prepare for on Thursday. I will be very involved in preparations for those from now until it is over and will not have time for lengthy posts for the next couple of days. There are sure to be a few of you who think I can't or won't explain or defend myself - that is not the case so those misconceptions are hereby refuted and dispelled. Until then I hope you have read the context of the post before you say "AHA! I got him here" and cut a sentence for quotation and build a huge misconception around a sentence - it has happened.

Glenn

Optimus

09-28-2005, 11:49 AM

My first televised appearance will be Thursday

Channel? Time?

Epicman

09-28-2005, 02:44 PM

Look at this for a very recent look at the state of the Evolution/ID debate concerning the PA case. I was going to copy the text to the board but then that little lawyer with angels wings on my right shoulder whispered in my ear "Is that not a copyright infringement?" So heres the link to the transcript of a Lou Dobbs CNN show that aired last night:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/26/ldt.01.html

The pertinent text is very near the bottom so scroll way down.

Optimus, unless you are local - very local - you can't see it. It is on Cox Cable Channel 22 which is here in Edmond, OK (a part of the Oklahoma City Metro area). In Edmond Channel 22 feeds off the University of Central Oklahoma and the City of Edmond local government. In another part of the metro area, for example Norman, OK, OU (University of Oklahoma) provides the feed and I won't be shown there (unless they feel the event is newsworthy enough to re-broadcast - Hope Hope) Anyhow the entire metro has maybe 6 - 8 different divided Channel 22's with their own management that carry only the local feeds.

All the networks in Oklahoma City (as well as Kansas City because of the Kansas debate) have been provided press releases concerning the book signing. It is sort of a big deal locally because the University of Central Oklahoma originated as a Territorial Normal School in the 1800's prior to even OU and OSU. The big deal part (locally) is that in the over 100 year history of UCO there has never been an author book signing let alone a book signing by a graduate of the university. (I can see the posts now about who gives a crap - look again at the previous sentence about the "locally" part.)

Anyhow it is the first rung of the ladder - you have to start somewhere. Having never been on TV (the show will be available to over 230,000 in the local area - and several million if the other 22's decide to air it) I am understandably a little nervous so I am taking a day to prepare. It is also not uncommon for the metro papers and TV stations to show up at events such as the book signing (even moreso due to the big deal I mentioned above) so I want to be at my best.

Glenn

Richard

09-28-2005, 03:07 PM

Do you see where I am going with this?

Sadly, yes. It consists primarily of trying to become a philosophical and scientific icon, without the tricky part about actually submitting your theories for proper testing, and getting ratty when people call you on the fact that your response to criticism is making posts of over a thousand words that say precisely nothing.

Epicman

09-28-2005, 03:36 PM

One post here pointed out the lacking in science education. One tries to educate - rather than push aside - and someone feels that is sad...

I'm sorry you feel that way but - again - the old tried and not so true methods have not worked - not for going on a hundred years in this debate.

I have sent free review copies to scientists, news organizations, theologians, and others to review - they are free to review and test away all they want. If you are suggesting a submission to this thread for a review would be helpful or productive then you need to review the thread.

As for an icon - I am only sharing with others what took me many years of research to formulate. If that makes me an icon it was not my intent. Again I have stated before that you need to throw out the door any ideas you have about ID. I even renamed it so as to be set apart from the stigma already placed upon it. I have used the term only as a convenient and politically neutral vehicle with which to introduce my Theories.

The problem here is that if I challenge you with your "nothing" statement I can name screen names of six to eight frequent posters on this thread who will immediately post their "me either" statements of support for your "nothing" statement within 4 hours of the challenge. I see no point in that sort of review - before you rush out to sign in with made-up screen names to invent a doubling of the six to eight figure i stated above just to 'prove' me wrong...

My God! What is it you folks want from me? And before you say a statement of my Theories go back and read my big post above - talk about a circular argument.

Glenn

NeuroFizz

09-28-2005, 05:15 PM

Hi, Glenn

One more word of preparation for your upcoming "discussions" about your book - when asked about your credentials, some people won't care what college courses you took. The first question asked likely will be about your research credentials in the area. And, "credentials" doesn't mean research you did for this book, unless you have separately published it. Just a heads up.

To All, a point of interest.

In the multitude of times I taught Human Anatomy and Physiology at the university level (around 30 times, class enrollments between 250 and 370 students per offering, two semester sequence), I frequently asked the students if males and females have the same number of ribs. I don't have the exact figures for each semester, but in those semesters I calculated it, about 40% of the students answered "no." When I asked individual students why they answered no, I almost always received a biblical answer. These were second-year students in the following majors (in order of most to least): Nursing, Exercise Science, Pre-Med (although it counted only as elective credit for their academic program), Dance (first semester only - their major required the musculoskeletal knowledge), Psychology, and lots of other majors in which the students took the course for general studies credit. In other words, this course wasn't part of the biology major curriculum, although it was as rigorous as any biology course at that level.

I have to add the following comment that came through one of the PM routes because I'm trying to type this while laughing through streams of tears:

"Cher has fewer ribs than Sonny had."

It came from one of our extremely clever colleagues here.

Birol

09-28-2005, 05:39 PM

I see no point in that sort of review - before you rush out to sign in with made-up screen names to invent a doubling of the six to eight figure i stated above just to 'prove' me wrong...

Do not try to invalidate the positions of the other posters by claiming they do not exist, Glenn. It is a disingenuous tactic that attempts to discredit individuals without actually refuting their points.

robeiae

09-28-2005, 05:46 PM

Meanwhile, in PA, this (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-27-voa38.cfm) begins today.

ETA: PA being a state, not a "traditional" publisher, BTW.

Rob :)

DeniseK

09-28-2005, 05:46 PM

And spruce up that website, will ya?

Richard

09-28-2005, 05:57 PM

I see no point in that sort of review - before you rush out to sign in with made-up screen names to invent a doubling of the six to eight figure i stated above just to 'prove' me wrong...

Glenn, you want to try and solve one of the most fundemental arguments between science and religion in the modern world, and you can't even hold your own in a debate on a writing forum without lowering yourself to ad hominem attacks and the kind of ducking and diving on the issues that makes you look like Zebedee on a trampoline. Your constant dodging of questions and attempts to reshift the focus of the argument has been noted, anything that might show you as anything other than a guy trying to sell a book has simply been noted by its absence.

My God! What is it you folks want from me? And before you say a statement of my Theories go back and read my big post above - talk about a circular argument.

It's only a circular argument because every time anyone asks you anything, you trot out a ludicrously sized post that goes off on any tangent that's not the question you've been asked, forcing people to ask again and again. You want people to take you seriously, but you're not giving anyone the information you need to do so - instead writing out endless diatribes and finishing off with 'But despite writing all this meandering piffle that nobody asked to see, I don't have the time to actually give you any information'.

To sum up your posts on this thread:

"Everything you know is wrong. Trust me on this. Buy my book."

That's all you're saying. No wonder you're finding it a tough crowd.

pconsidine

09-28-2005, 06:22 PM

The first document basically states that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine. The second states that there's good evidence it's fact.

True, but the second still doesn't controvert the qualifications of the first. As a matter of accepted dogma, there's no difference.

Epicman

09-28-2005, 06:23 PM

Note that the last above "quote" in Richard's post is not mine. It is an attempt to mislead - typical.

ResearchGuy

09-28-2005, 06:26 PM

My first televised appearance will be Thursday...
Congratulations and best wishes.

--Ken

Epicman

09-28-2005, 06:38 PM

Thank You Ken - I mean that too - it was refreshing.

Pat~

09-28-2005, 07:24 PM

Hey, Reph, I"m back. (BTW, thanks for a civil discussion of all this...)

I took it to mean the ancient Hebrews could write only within the limitations imposed by their culture's mode of thought and its literary conventions. They may not have believed God was omniscient; I'm no religious historian, but I think that idea came later, possibly introduced by medieval theologians. Consequently, I'm not at all confident that the story in Genesis 2 must be interpreted as you interpret it.

Yes, but her assumption was that God then didn't inspire (whisper the thoughts, or author) the writing of Scripture...that He didn't use the cultural modes of thought and literary conventions to write consistent Truth, despite the cultural differences of the people recording His thoughts. If an all-powerful God inspired the written record (and I believe God is also by definition omnipotent), it wouldn't matter whether the cultural idea of an omniscient God came earlier or later...if God were truly omniscient, He would present Himself that way from Genesis to Revelation--and I think He does; I don't see any evidence in the OT writings that the Hebrews didn't believe in an all-knowing God. For example, King David, who led the Israelites in worship, wrote in Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Even Job, one of the 'oldest' Hebrews in the Bible rhetorically asks, "Does He not see my ways and count my every step?" (Job 31:4)

Then it follows that they don't have to bear the same relation to reality as ordinary beliefs do?

No, I believe they do bear a relation to reality in that factual evidence is taken into consideration. That's why I wrote "belief systems are ultimately a matter of faith, not fact (though they take available facts into consideration)."

That's not what I understand the word "knowledge" to mean. There can be a false belief, but there can't, by definition, be false knowledge.

I think you're equating knowledge with truth. There certainly can be false knowledge. (Eg. the ancients teaching that the world was flat). I do believe in absolute Truth; just that our 'knowledge' doesn't always encompass it.