While the smoke is still coming from the error burn I might just add that the point of my reply was that atheisim did not make Dawkins famous, if anything it was the other way around.
I didn't read the original poster as saying that atheism made Dawkins famous. In fact, I thought your original reply was far more poignant. In it I thought you were making the point that Dawkins isn't only famous for his atheism. And that would indeed be true - he wrote other books where he is famous for his expounding of evolution and natural selection. But if your point was actually that "atheism did not make Dawkins famous" then I think that's missing what the original poster was claiming. He was merely claiming that Dawkins was famous for his atheism - much like a famous sports star is famous for their football. Dawkins is perhaps most famous for his atheism, but he is also famous for his ability to convey the ideas of evolution and natural selection.
I don't know the answer to the question about the assumed evolutionary advantages bestowed on theists. Is it more advantageous to follow the preist or the prophet, or is more advantageous to do a bit of both and let god/evolution sort it out?
Just to put my thoughts on the record, which I think are similar to your sentiments, I don't actually think that we can measure advantageousness in any meaningful way. If someone is born with 10% better hearing, they're not going to have a meaningful enough advantage that will allow them to pass their genes on in such a way that it spreads through the whole population eventually. And if it won't happen for 10% better hearing, it's not going to happen for the small changes that neo-Darwinism speaks about. I think it's quite useless to postulate about which behaviours or ideas should be spread more, because of presumed evolutionary benefits.
Ultimately it is too difficult for us to predict which traits will be most useful. I think if you're an atheist you really can't comment meaningfully about which traits are better for our race. There's simply too many variables, possibilities, and environments to consider. As you essentially said, let god/evolution sort it out! As a theist I don't think survival is the greatest good anyway. It's just interesting to see atheists act as though it is important that we identify which traits are most advantageous. Why should they care if theism succeeds? Obviously it's the most successful in this given environment if it succeeds. Let the chips fall where they may.
You are confused about the difference between religion and theism. Judaism and Hinduism are both theistic religions. The former is monotheist and the latter is polytheist. To fully burn your error into your mind, consider this definition: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
See how belief in many gods also counts as theism? You should save the clever arrogance, like telling me I have no clue, for times when you're actually right. As it stands, you've just set yourself up for a bigger fall.
Wouldn't matter if the person you responded to had named a specific religion anyway. His claims could easily be taken as implicitly referring to the culture in which they live. You've just interpreted him(/her) as making a universal claim when there's no reason to suppose that's the case. Perhaps they'd freely admit to you that in India, yes, it would be better to promote Hinduism than Christianity. After all, adaptation is influenced by the environment we're in, not some hypothetical environment we might one day encounter.
You see where I'm going with this? its a Huge huge universe. Human beings are small, insignificant. The creator of the universe if he exists wouldn't blink twice at what Humans care about.
Your faulty reason omits one very important point: God is conceived of as a mental, non-physical being. ie, He has thoughts, but no physical body. The size of matter is irrelevant compared to the life of a mental being.
Imagine, for example, you have a daughter, and next to her you have a pile of dirt twice the size of your daughter. Is that dirt more meaningful in virtue of its size? What about your daughter vs a clone of her that is dead? Or a clone that is living but devoid of any mental life? You can see the difference between a daughter and inert matter of any size.
What makes us special, noticeable, and of concern to God is that unlike most matter in the universe, we like Him possess a mental life. The universe could be 10^2000 times larger than it is and it still wouldn't matter, since we have thoughts and rocks do not. That is why we are special. We have more in common with God than a rock does, or a billion galaxies do.
Arguments based on the size of the universe fail on so many levels.
Theists are not more socially adapted to survival. Quite the opposite. The rational survive in an emergency. The religious panic and pray, and as a result die.
One might enquire then, if religious belief is so unhelpful, why this trait managed to insinuate itself so effectively through most of the human population, if natural selection is more likely to weed it out?
I object strongly to your implication that there is a necessary distinction between "the rational" and "the religious". These terms are unrelated, and only in your mind are they mutually exclusive.
More importantly, a grandoise claim like "the religious panic and pray, and as a result die" is so pathetically and obviously false, one wonders why you think you could claim that and still appear rational. It seems you are prone to making unsubstantiated, indeed claims that cannot be substantiated, to support your view. I mean, do we ignore all those religious people who pray, panic, and survive through action? Do we just need one positive example of a religious person praying and as a result dying to confirm your statement? What about people who don't pray and "act rational" and as a result die? Would that be a counter-example?
One can only conclude that you are trying to score points by asserting the absurd to the choir.
Every example of "irreducible complexity" that I know of has been shown to have a probable evolutionary pathway- i.e. flagella, the eye, blood clotting. As these examples are shown to be explainable through evolutionary theory, new IC examples will be generated (or else the evolutionary evidence is just ignored.)
The bacterial flagellum has not been explained yet. Kenneth Miller pointed at the type type three secretory system as a subsystem that basically demonstrates that a pathway is possible. That is not a solution, however, because it does not explain *how* an irreducibly complex (IC) system can arise. The fact remains true, despite Miller's response, that if you take any of the 38 or so essential proteins away from the flagellum it stops functioning. We're not trying to explain whether what's left fulfills any function, but rather whether we can get the IC system in question to arise by gradual changes. The bacterial flagellum cannot arise by direct darwinian pathways.
The common answer to this problem then is to say that each step of the way, the bacterial flagellum fulfils some other purpose, and then suddenly it fulfils a new function quite by chance, and happens to be selected for that, until it can no longer perform the old function. Such is logically possible, but highly unlikely - this is where an explanation needs to be, and this is where the empirical research is completely lacking. I realise my descriptions are pretty vague - but you will get the details by reading some of the articles written by ID available on the web.
he problem with trying to disprove IC is that for every instance of potential IC that's disproven, a new one can take its place. For example, an ID proponent might concede that the three examples I gave *do* have a potential evolutionary pathway... but 'Biological System X' does not.
The ID guys have not given any ground in this way. They still contend, as they always have, that the bacterial flagellum shows IC and is unexplained by darwinian natural selection. So this accusation is more what you anticipate the future to hold - not a statement of what is actually the case. People listen to someone like Kenneth Miller because he is loud and tells them what they want to hear - that the childish ID ideas have been thoroughly refuted and hold no place in the public domain. But it's all just a show. Nothing's been explained. Though I have no doubt that Miller thinks he's adequately explained it.
My main complaint with ID is that it begins with the assumption that there is an intelligent designer.
This statement needs to be more precise. It is not true (ie, false) that ID begins with the premise that there is an intelligent designer of life and the universe. ID begins with the assumption that there are certain sure signposts of intelligent design, and that when these are detected we can be confident we have detected design within something. This does not mean that every instance of design will have these signposts (eg, someone trying to hide their presence), but it does mean when we find these signposts that we can be sure a designer interacted at some point. This does not presuppose the existence of any intelligent designers, not even humans. The ID theory could define the ways in which we discover design, and then apply it to a universe devoid of intelligence and find no evidence. That does not disrupt the theory. It merely says, if we find these signposts, then we have found design.
Then the "scientific" explanations follow- specified complexity, irreducible complexity, etc.- but they're mainly criticisms of evolution more than anything else.
In fact, they are not. Intelligent Design specifies ways in which we can detect design. We can apply this method to multiple fields (cryptology, criminology, etc) and we should expect to find, in all circumstances, that when these
Thankyou for your polite and thoughtful response. I would love to respond to it, but will be busy over the next few days. If you are willing to drop me an email at tyreth at gmail. com I will respond to it sometime in the next few days. Just in case the story closes before I get a chance to write a rejoinder.
I think you need to explain this point more clearly for me to have a chance of responding responsibly to you:
It's only when you start making SPECIFIC claims about how/what was designed, and when, that the debate gets sticky. Go back far enough, we don't have any explanation for how things came about (e.g., far before the Big Bang) -- so Intelligent Design becomes as reasonable a candidate as any other. But what most ID proponents are talking about is the evolution (sorry, creation) of complex biological organisms. In that respect, FSMism differs GREATLY from Christianity. Furthermore, the "major" religions, and all the minor ones too, seem to be unable to agree on all that as well.
In particular, I don't the point you made that allows you to conclude that "FSMism differs GREATLY from Christianity" in any way relevant to my argument. How does FSMism differ greatly from Christianity? And in what way does that difference influence my initial argument?
Are you trying to argue that some religions have certain creation stories that would conflict with what ID claims? (If so, I'd be interested to know what claims you think contradict and where - I certainly agree there must be some, but know of no examples myself)
I take jabs at ID because it's a really, really, really stupid "theory," and I use the term "theory" loosely, because it's not a falsifiable scientific theory.
Correction - you take jabs at ID because you act really, really, really stupid because you can't see past your blind dogma to actually *consider* an opposing viewpoint. Instead of using reason, you have to resort to throwing around insults, misrepresentation, and blind ignorance. If you took the time to understand what you are criticising - act like a rational human being - you would see your diatribe is nothing more than bluster mixed with fear.
Three points, and please take the time to consider them:
1. ID is falsifiable - Michael Behe's claim to irreducible complexity can be countered in more than one way - one is to show an indirect darwinian pathway that would produce the IC in question. Another, which Kenneth Miller proposed, and Michael Behe agreed, would be to knock out one of the parts of an IC system and see if evolution is sufficient to replace it. All ID really says is that certain signposts are indications of design. One need demonstrate that such a signpost can be generated by chance, necessity, or some combination in order to show ID is misguided or wrong
2. Falsifiability is not universally accepted - There are philosophers of science who do not think that falsifiability is a necessary criterion for a scientific theory. While I think that ID is falsifiable, you are wrong to say that a theory *must* be falsifiable to be counted as scientific. You are wrong in the sense that people we have a right to listen to will disagree with you - this is by no means a universally accepted criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms)
3. You contradict yourself. You said "Every argument that ID proponents make against evolution is wrong- every single one." You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either every argument that ID proponents make against evolution is wrong, and therefore falsifiable, or no argument that ID makes is wrong because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind what you want to believe. You're confused because you want to use every insult or strategy in the book to oppose ID on irrational grounds, so you fling them out at random without even considering what you're saying.
It's the creation of a bunch of religious people with a poor understanding of evolutionary theory and of science in general
A completely unfounded claim. It may be that it was started by "a bunch of religious people", but that's hardly relevant. You have no reason at all to say they have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory and of science in general. Just because you are incapable of understanding what they are arguing does not mean the fault lies with them.
Every argument that ID proponents make against evolution is wrong- every single one.
Such bold statements are more indicative of blind adherence to a particular belief than of any rational statement
It seems you have no clue about what ID is - "disguise the Bible in some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo"? What are you talking about?
Are you denying that most proponents of ID have a religious agenda that they're trying to push? Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer, and I'll give you 3 guesses Who that might be.
*sigh* It seems the word "grace" is missing from your dictionary. Assume the worst. Yes, many ID proponents are religious. Think about it - they're promoting a theory that would indicate that life on this planet was put here by a designing intelligence. Do you think atheists would rush to that? No! ID is a theory that happens to simultaneously be highly credible, worth considering, and of serious consequence to atheist beliefs. But just because you are afraid of the consequences of ID to your own beliefs does not make it wrong. You're not ra
William Dembski mentioned him/her in his book The Design Revolution. I would have to find the exact page reference, which I've lost unfortunately. So I'd prefer you consider the Fred Hoyle reference so I don't need to spend 30 minutes trying to find it:)
Dembski and Behe are both Christians first and scientists second. Please provide an example of a non-religious (or even just someone of a non-Abrahamic religious background) scientists who supports ID if you want to support your argument.
You amusingly misunderstood my question about a Buddhist. I made that comment because the original author said only fanatical Christians were ID supporters. I was pointing out that some Buddhists are too. That's sufficient to answer your question of someone from a non-Abrahamic religious background. But I will go one step further, and present you with Fred Hoyle, who believes in directed panspermia. A quote from Hoyle, shamelessly lifted from his wikipedia article:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
But what does it matter that I can show you that it's not just Christians who believe in Intelligent Design? Let the evidence lead where it does.
Exactly *how* is ID "scientific?"
Is there evidence to suggest that an intelligent designer is required for life to form and evolve? So far, I've heard (and read) some hand-waving about "irreducible complexity," but in all instances, this has turned out to be merely, "I don't understand it, so God must've done it."
Thanks for your response. This is only a *very* brief overview. William Dembski talks about specified complexity, an attribute which can help us in detecting design. Basically, if we find specified complexity, then we have a clear indicator of design. This is not to say that all design is accompanied by specified complexity - but rather that all specified complexity is the product of design somewhere down the chain. eg, a photocopy of a book was not designed, but the specified complexity of that photocopy (ie, the words or pictures it copied) can be traced back to an intelligent designer.
This method of detecting design can be uncontroversially applied to various areas of life such as cryptology, criminology, etc. In all cases where we can independently verify the origin of specified complexity we can confirm that it was indeed the product of intelligence. So, then, to show the ID project misguided one need demonstrate instances of specified complexity that originate independent from intelligence. So that they are sufficiently explained apart from intelligent design.
Where this becomes controversial is when these methods (which we use all the time anyway) are applied to biology. Here people expect that the answers to origins will be natural - but ID shows the presence of specified complexity, and that this is properly explained via intelligent design.
So as you can see, this is not a negative project. It's not just "we can't explain it so God must've done it". It's "in all other cases specified complexity is a sure indicator of intelligent design, and when we apply this method to biology we find signs of intelligent design". Biology wants to be the exception, but we have no reason beyond wishful thinking to believe that's the case.
I recommend you take the time to read articles by the discovery institute, especially those by William Dembski who does a better job than most I've seen at drawing together Michael Behe's arguments and showing how they work in the overall project ID is working on. He has some articles at www.designinference.com - and perhaps your local university will have books written by him.
Basically, you are trading a natural complexity ("how did this evolve like this?") with a mystical one ("Who created us? And because they are certainly complex than even us, how did *they* get created?")
All you're doing is moving the layer of complexity back a level, and declaring that level off-limits to science. And you're doing this with no real reason.
This argument from Dawkins doesn't work, for a few reasons:
1. If specified complexity is a reliable indicator of design, and biological systems show specified complexity, then it doesn't matter if we're moving the problem back one level - that's what the evidence says, so we just have to accept it and take it back a level and deal with it
2. It may be that this infinite regress requires us to change our expectations - eg, that intelligence, or minds, are distinct from the brain - perhaps reality is at its foundation mental and not physical. It may be that there is an as yet undiscovered physicalist answer to the origin of the upper designer. Just because the answers lead you to places you find uncomfortable does not mean that they are wrong
3. Sometimes it just is the case that one designer is to find its explanation in another, or that one thing is to be explained in terms of things more complex than itself. For example, a tv remote is complex, yet I have no problem with explaining its origins in terms of something even more complex. Just because you may want life on earth to be the beginning of the ch
If ID were being pushed by more than fanatical Christians, I would agree.
Happy days, then! Because while ID is majority Christian, it does include amongst its numbers non-Christians. So, then, I can assume you agree. (out of curiosity, what's your definition of a fanatical Christian? Does a Buddhist count? What Christians don't count?)
I would be willing to bet that if you asked a hard-core ID advocate if they would allow the "creation theory" (aka Creation Story/Myth/Fable) of other religions to be taught right alongside their version of ID, they would change colors and sputter some pseudo babble about how that theory is wrong.
Are we talking here a hard-core ID advocate who sits in a Church and gives money to the Discovery Institute? Or are we talking about a scientist who is also an ID proponent? William Dembski and Michael Behe, for example, agree with current scientific evidence regarding the age of the universe and of life on earth. Michael Behe believes that all living things share a single common ancestor. I can't imagine either of these two accepting the teaching of YEC in schools, let alone any *other* religion's creation story. Chances are you're just making stereotyped accusations hidden behind poorly defined terms like "hard-core ID advocate", and in fact don't have a clue about what you criticise.
And this is precisely where this point starts falling apart.
ID isn't anywhere near "correct."
This response is completely unrelated to my initial point, and is just an opportunistic jab at ID without understanding it. I shouldn't be surprised, given that that's what most posts on this story are.
Except 99.99% of ID enthusiasts are nutty Christians trying to force their beliefs on others. The ID movement is their attempt to get their religion taught in school, and everyone knows it. Since they can't get the Bible taught in American public schools, they do the next best thing- disguise the Bible in some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to fool the religious idiots who don't understand science, and then pretend it's science and some kind of alternative to a pretty rock-solid actual scientific theory, and try to fool a bunch of kids who don't know any better.
These excuses are made up merely as an attempt at avoiding the arguments and scientific program they present. If you can't beat 'em, knock down a strawman. Whether or not an individual ID proponent wants ID taught in a school says *nothing* about whether the ideas are valid. It seems you have no clue about what ID is - "disguise the Bible in some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo"? What are you talking about? The amount of outright hostility on this story is breathtaking. Nevermind rational discourse.
The stupid thing is that the FSM was invented as a parody to counter Intelligent Design, not religion in general. I've no idea how they think that FSM makes any telling point against ID, but sure enough: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Why is this stupid? Because if ID is correct, it allows for FSM as much as Christianity or any other religion that involves a creator. Asking ID to be taught in schools does not entail teaching any specific religion. To make this point clearer - ID is an overarching project that encompasses many religions and materialist scenarios - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ancient Egyptian beliefs, FSM, and more. So FSM is a *subset* of all the possible frameworks if ID is correct. So to ask that FSM be taught alongside ID is to show a category misunderstanding. ID does not stand in contrast with FSM, but rather FSM falls under ID (as does directed panspermia and other non-religious creation scenarios). Teaching ID in schools would *not* mean teaching a specific idea, such as Christianity, with it.
The parent post did not say anything about the stereotypes in the article being incorrect. He argued, in fact, that there was no reason for us to accept their explanations of why things are a certain way. It doesn't mean the authors are wrong, but it just means that their reasons for their conclusions are ridiculous.
It is possible to believe the truth about something, but have come to believe it for terrible reasons. Pointing out that your reasons for believing something are absurd is not the same thing as saying your conclusion is wrong - just that you aren't justified in holding your belief.
But that supposes that you believe in the concept of 'timelessness'... but we see time marching on all around us. Time is already conceived by physicists as something with a distinct reality. There are two points I'd like to make, as quick notes:
1. Numbers seem to have a timeless existence - it makes no sence to ask "when was 2?" We experience some concepts that are in fact timeless. If time did not exist (and we can ponder this), then we think that numbers could still exist. Animals can't exist without time, nor can rocks, but numbers can
2. Current cosmology in the works of Einstein and others shows that time did "begin" to exist at the point of the big bang. ie, time is not inseparably linked with the idea of existence. Something can exist, but not be connected to time. It is atemporal. To ask what caused the big bang is a very reasonable question, but also the thing that caused it will be timeless, since time was a creation at the time of the big bang.
In summary, I don't see any reason why you think it's not reasonable to think that things can be atemporal.
Wah? It seems like you get tangled here... Surely the athiest viewpoint is always to think that we can break things down to more and more simple things until we get to the basic root of how and where things come from...
*snip*
I have not read Dawkin's books, but I have seen him talk and I really do agree with what he says
I'm sorry, due to some confusion I thought you and the AC were referring to Dawkins' argument on the subject. He exclaims that you can't explain biological life by appealing to something more complex. He says that organised complexity is the very thing we're attempting to explain, so appealing to something even more complex (God) is a ridiculous answer to the question.
I was trying to pre-empt this argument of Dawkins, which is itself foolish, and no more than sophistry. I was pointing out that sometimes organised complexity is to find its explanation in something even more complex. In this case the TV finds its explanation in human engineers. The reasoning of Dawkins would have us believe it is irrational to explain complexity by something even more complex.
To say 'I don't understand how life started', and then to just invent a pre-formed, always being entity to explain it all away is, really, just giving up.
I'm not saying I don't understand how life started. That's the atheist. In the atheist's worldview there is no good explanation now for how life arose from non-life. As a result they invent explanations - so why can't the theist do this? (not that I think we are - just want to know why something's ok for the atheist, but not the theist)
The atheist has to explain how something came from nothing. The theist makes the very reasonable step of arguing that if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause. The atheist takes the unreasonable step of saying that even if the universe began to exist, it doesn't necessarily need a cause. The theist doesn't invent deities to explain things that can be explained in other ways. There is a very real problem about how both life arose initially, and how the universe began, for the atheist. The theist postulates the most reasonable explanation - that the universe had a cause, and that cause we call God. A timeless cause that needs no explanation for its origin, for there was no beginning of it.
This is the part of the argument where the theist traditionally embarasses him or herself by pretending that Hitler and Stalin weren't religious men themselves
No, this is the point where our discussion ends. You have so far to go in understanding the position of a religious person that it's just not going to happen. Frequent conversations, possibly in person, would probably lead to some understanding between us - but that's not going to happen here on slashdot.
As per the AC comment along with this, how does it make it any easier to believe?
I have the issue of what came before the universe, you've got the problem of what came before your god.
Sorry, I don't get emails me informing me of AC replies, so I usually don't pay attention to them. This response is a standard Dawkinsian one that, while seems intuitively sound, is in fact not relevant.
Given the current cosmology of the universe, we believe time began with the big bang. If time began with the big bang, this means there is no "before" the big bang. If there is no time before the big bang, then the cause of the universe itself must have been timeless. And a timeless cause needs no beginning, no creation. The argument is sometimes presented as thus:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
Note that only those things which begin to exist need a cause. God, being timeless, has no beginning and therefore no need for a cause. This doesn't mean that God didn't have a cause, just that we have no need to look back further in the chain. We can reasonably stop there.
Consider numbers. Do numbers have a beginning? Or do they just have a timeless sort of existence? Do we need to look for a beginning for them? I don't think so. In the same way, God can just exist, and need no explanation of origin - for He exists timelessly, and therefore needs no cause.
Dawkins made this (and numerous other) mistake in his recent book. The fact is, when we find complex things, it is often the case that these complex things were caused by even more complex things. Dawkins argues that this is not the case. But consider a TV. Is it absurd to think that we should conceive of something more complex than the TV to explain its origins? Of course not. There is nothing irrational about taking one step back to find the cause.
It's the same issue... although mine is easier (although I can't wrap my head around either scenario) because I just have to imagine how ANYTHING came into being, no matter how small or simple. You have to imagine how a hugely complex omnipotent being just popped into existence.
Hopefully what I said will explain this in a way that might make a little sense.
I know which one I have less trouble with.
As do I:)
As for common design vs common descent... common descent works better because we have things which have NO use at all to us in us (the coccyx as a left over for a tail has no use for us)... and why do men have nipples? It's purely excuse making to suggest that it's to do with common design, as the designer (ie God) is a pretty sloppy creature maker if he kept using bits from other animals in ones that he kinda, shouldn't have.
These issues are all rather debatable. Maybe these really are vestigial traits, or maybe they are there for reasons we are not yet aware of. The number of organs and features thought unecessary, but later discovered to be quite useful, is large. The Coccyx for example does have a use - it is a place for muscles to attach, and a shock absorber for when we sit.
It's rather a matter of perspective. As an atheist, one would expect to find features maladapted or no longer necessary. As a theist, you might still think some vestigial features could exist, but you'd expect the list to be quite small or zero. It's not really evidence for common ancestry. In fact, I've seen the opposite - the human body seems to be more and more intricately constructed so that all components are there.
The sad little article in AiG was nothing more than the same bullshit and lies that theists have always engaged in.
Your vehemence and irrationality seems to stem from this idea that all us theists (not just YEC's now!) willfully and knowingly tell lies to promote whatever cause we believe in.
Whatever your reason for thinking this, I don't know. But if you think you'll persuade me, or indeed any theist, by telling us we're liars then you'll be sorely disappointed. I know I don't lie, so telling me I am a liar is not going to achieve anything. Who are you hoping to convince? Or do you have a chip on your shoulder from when you went to church, and now you think all theists are your natural enemies? Perhaps some of that Dawkins hostility has found its way to you. Whatever your problem is, there's no way you'll discuss anything meaningfully with a theist with your current attitude.
I quoted that article not to justify any YEC belief, but just to show you that they don't reject natural selection. It doesn't matter if the conclusions they draw are completely wrong - the fact remains that they believe in natural selection and a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
You don't understand YEC at ALL. Their position is solely this: the bible is inerrant truth. They only acknowledge that changes in allele frequencies may have occurred, because it doesn't seem to contradict the bible and because too many of Christians accept some kind of evolution for them to completely deny it.
Well, small hope you'd read that article I suppose. You're free to believe what you want, but it would be nice if you didn't spread your uninformed opinions with others until you check your facts. As for your claims about their position "solely" being that the Bible is inerrant truth, you're equivocating. Yes, it's true that their position is that the Bible is inerrant and that's why Darwinism is false. But it is not true that all their beliefs are solely this. Just because the Bible doesn't say anything about the milk in their fridge, that doesn't mean they don't have any beliefs about it, or reject to its presence in their fridge. Likewise, just because the Bible doesn't say how different kinds spread after their creation doesn't mean that YEC's won't make statements about them, or try to learn more about this world. You're being completely unreasonable in your arguments - and I think it's because you've been caught out as ignorant, at the time when you were trying to expose someone else's ignorance.
To anyone who knows something about YEC, your statements look foolish and uninformed. You say, "They only acknowledge that changes in allele frequencies may have occurred, because it doesn't seem to contradict the bible and because too many of Christians accept some kind of evolution for them to completely deny it". That's just ridiculous. Maybe you'll persuade some high school atheist who doesn't know what he's talking about - but you shouldn't wonder that the YEC ignores you when you say such stupid things. All you're saying is "they're lying". You offer no reason for someone to believe this other than your incredulity.
You'll note that EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT on AIG is based on disproven or discredited studies
I'm not here to defend the YEC position, just to point out your ignorance, so I won't be commenting on this.
Incidentally, calling it "Darwinism" is deliberate and pejorative, since Darwin only provided our initial form of natural selection...[snip]...This leads me to believe that you ARE a young-earth-creationist.
I don't use the term Darwinism as a pejorative. YEC is not a pejorative, just a way of identifying a particular set of beliefs. A Darwinist as it is mostly used refers to someone who not only believes in a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, but also the idea that all living things share a single common ancestor, and usually also the belief that the first life arose spontaneously solely through natural processes not guided by any intelligence.
That is all. Evolution is a word that is easily used equivocally. By using the term Darwinist it makes it much more clearly what is spoken about. If you like, the term Neo-Darwinist is used usually to take into account the modern views where they differ from Darwin.
As for me being a YEC, I'm not (though I once was). But maybe you'll just accuse me of lying too...seems like an easy way to always think you're right.
I find it much more easy to believe in things starting off very simple and slowly evolving and changing, and various new strains adapting to the areas they find themselves in until over millions of years you start having many quite disparate things starting to evolve.
It's just so much easier to believe in, because it makes sense.
I can appreciate you thinking that, but it just isn't the case. If you think about it, you will soon realise that similarities in the makeup of various living things is as much evidence of common design as it is for common descent. Real world designed things bear that fact out. It is true that the common features of living things is explainable under the theory of common descent. It is not true, however, that this is an evidence of common descent, because it's equally well explained under common design.
You might also appreciate (even if you disagree) the idea that most or all who believe in design believe that there were only a handful of original living things created (perhaps 50), and from those evolved all the existing living things we see today.
Regarding creation out of thin air, I find it much more difficult to believe that this universe came from nothing as opposed from something. This is one of the many reasons why I could never be an atheist.
I've been through answers in Genesis. Acknowledgement of what they call "microevolution" is simply their latest fall-back point. They only concede it's truth because to do otherwise would make them look so deliberately ignorant that they would lose all but their core membership
So, it turns out that they're not refusing the evidence you cited, but in fact embrace it, and so your response is "they're lying! They really don't believe it, but they're lying to us to suck us in". Well, you're wrong. I'm trying to help you understand something here, because it's quite obvious you're quick to criticise but slow to understand that which you reject. The YEC position (and I don't consider myself a YEC) is that natural selection and changes in allele frequencies in a population over time have played a *very* large part in the 6000 year history of the world, and their worldview. For you to say that they only concede it so as to not lose membership is a major (yet common) misunderstanding of the YEC position. I direct you to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/fi nches.asp
Most people are blissfully unaware of the objections cited to Darwinism, and so they wonder at how people can reject it. Maybe taking the time to understand the objections might make things a bit clearer.
Nevertheless, if someone were to demonstrate a contradiction between the bible and "microevolution", they would be denying the existence of changes in allele frequencies soon afterwards.
This is probably correct, but they don't expect this to happen. Since for them the Bible is revealed truth from God, it will *never* contradict facts of the world. So if something is actually true, then the Bible will never claim that it is false.
Get a clue. Or at least have the decency to know a little something about what you criticise.
As surprising as it may sound to you as someone who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, Creationists *do* believe in evolution. They believe that mutations occur, that children differ from their parents, and that bacteria adapt to novel situations. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Answers in Genesis website, it shouldn't take you too long to find that out.
What they dispute is the idea that all living things share a single common ancestor. They just don't believe that the dog and the shark are distantly related. But they do believe that evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, does occur.
If these things go underground quietly, then it will be as good as winning a debate. People won't see it or hear about it, won't think about it.
If it enters public discussion, it gives the impression that there are two sides to the debate. And if there are two sides to the debate, then it seems rational for a person to sit on either side, so long as they have some reasons to give (whether or not they are good).
Censoring this DVD will go a long way towards stopping the ideas from spreading...much more so than reasoned and open debate. Give people a forum to discuss their ideas, and suddenly they have more advertising than they could ever have hoped for to persuade those who are likely to be persuaded. Hide it from the public eye and they'll find it much more difficult to spread their ideas.
Note: I'm not saying whether this approach is right or wrong, but rather just how effective it is.
Hint: if you can phrase your argument in terms of mathematical logic, then maybe you can apply the "law of the excluded middle". So long as you're just using English, and the fuzzy definitions that go with it, you can't argue that applies. Not by just saying it's so, anyway.
Very well. P is defined as 'The universe began to exist'. Therefore, (P v ~P)
Your examples of a sphere and a quantum "wavicle" do not present breaches of the law of excluded middle. They represent misapplications of it. A photon can be both a wave and a particle - this is an example of something thought physically impossible, but it is not logically impossible. The logical presentation would be something like [Ex Px] (Wx & Px) - there's nothing logically impossible about that. If using the law of excluded middle, you would state that it is either true that a photon can be both a wave and a particle, or that a photon cannot be both a wave and a particle. The second was thought to be true, but we now know the first is in fact true. This does not break the law of excluded middle. Perhaps if you show me the google link you were reading, I can help clear it up for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately it is too difficult for us to predict which traits will be most useful. I think if you're an atheist you really can't comment meaningfully about which traits are better for our race. There's simply too many variables, possibilities, and environments to consider. As you essentially said, let god/evolution sort it out! As a theist I don't think survival is the greatest good anyway. It's just interesting to see atheists act as though it is important that we identify which traits are most advantageous. Why should they care if theism succeeds? Obviously it's the most successful in this given environment if it succeeds. Let the chips fall where they may.
You are confused about the difference between religion and theism. Judaism and Hinduism are both theistic religions. The former is monotheist and the latter is polytheist. To fully burn your error into your mind, consider this definition:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
See how belief in many gods also counts as theism? You should save the clever arrogance, like telling me I have no clue, for times when you're actually right. As it stands, you've just set yourself up for a bigger fall.
Wouldn't matter if the person you responded to had named a specific religion anyway. His claims could easily be taken as implicitly referring to the culture in which they live. You've just interpreted him(/her) as making a universal claim when there's no reason to suppose that's the case. Perhaps they'd freely admit to you that in India, yes, it would be better to promote Hinduism than Christianity. After all, adaptation is influenced by the environment we're in, not some hypothetical environment we might one day encounter.
Your faulty reason omits one very important point: God is conceived of as a mental, non-physical being. ie, He has thoughts, but no physical body. The size of matter is irrelevant compared to the life of a mental being.
Imagine, for example, you have a daughter, and next to her you have a pile of dirt twice the size of your daughter. Is that dirt more meaningful in virtue of its size? What about your daughter vs a clone of her that is dead? Or a clone that is living but devoid of any mental life? You can see the difference between a daughter and inert matter of any size.
What makes us special, noticeable, and of concern to God is that unlike most matter in the universe, we like Him possess a mental life. The universe could be 10^2000 times larger than it is and it still wouldn't matter, since we have thoughts and rocks do not. That is why we are special. We have more in common with God than a rock does, or a billion galaxies do.
Arguments based on the size of the universe fail on so many levels.
One might enquire then, if religious belief is so unhelpful, why this trait managed to insinuate itself so effectively through most of the human population, if natural selection is more likely to weed it out?I object strongly to your implication that there is a necessary distinction between "the rational" and "the religious". These terms are unrelated, and only in your mind are they mutually exclusive.
More importantly, a grandoise claim like "the religious panic and pray, and as a result die" is so pathetically and obviously false, one wonders why you think you could claim that and still appear rational. It seems you are prone to making unsubstantiated, indeed claims that cannot be substantiated, to support your view. I mean, do we ignore all those religious people who pray, panic, and survive through action? Do we just need one positive example of a religious person praying and as a result dying to confirm your statement? What about people who don't pray and "act rational" and as a result die? Would that be a counter-example?
One can only conclude that you are trying to score points by asserting the absurd to the choir.
The bacterial flagellum has not been explained yet. Kenneth Miller pointed at the type type three secretory system as a subsystem that basically demonstrates that a pathway is possible. That is not a solution, however, because it does not explain *how* an irreducibly complex (IC) system can arise. The fact remains true, despite Miller's response, that if you take any of the 38 or so essential proteins away from the flagellum it stops functioning. We're not trying to explain whether what's left fulfills any function, but rather whether we can get the IC system in question to arise by gradual changes. The bacterial flagellum cannot arise by direct darwinian pathways.
The common answer to this problem then is to say that each step of the way, the bacterial flagellum fulfils some other purpose, and then suddenly it fulfils a new function quite by chance, and happens to be selected for that, until it can no longer perform the old function. Such is logically possible, but highly unlikely - this is where an explanation needs to be, and this is where the empirical research is completely lacking. I realise my descriptions are pretty vague - but you will get the details by reading some of the articles written by ID available on the web.
The ID guys have not given any ground in this way. They still contend, as they always have, that the bacterial flagellum shows IC and is unexplained by darwinian natural selection. So this accusation is more what you anticipate the future to hold - not a statement of what is actually the case. People listen to someone like Kenneth Miller because he is loud and tells them what they want to hear - that the childish ID ideas have been thoroughly refuted and hold no place in the public domain. But it's all just a show. Nothing's been explained. Though I have no doubt that Miller thinks he's adequately explained it.
This statement needs to be more precise. It is not true (ie, false) that ID begins with the premise that there is an intelligent designer of life and the universe. ID begins with the assumption that there are certain sure signposts of intelligent design, and that when these are detected we can be confident we have detected design within something. This does not mean that every instance of design will have these signposts (eg, someone trying to hide their presence), but it does mean when we find these signposts that we can be sure a designer interacted at some point. This does not presuppose the existence of any intelligent designers, not even humans. The ID theory could define the ways in which we discover design, and then apply it to a universe devoid of intelligence and find no evidence. That does not disrupt the theory. It merely says, if we find these signposts, then we have found design.
In fact, they are not. Intelligent Design specifies ways in which we can detect design. We can apply this method to multiple fields (cryptology, criminology, etc) and we should expect to find, in all circumstances, that when these
Thankyou for your polite and thoughtful response. I would love to respond to it, but will be busy over the next few days. If you are willing to drop me an email at tyreth at gmail. com I will respond to it sometime in the next few days. Just in case the story closes before I get a chance to write a rejoinder.
In particular, I don't the point you made that allows you to conclude that "FSMism differs GREATLY from Christianity" in any way relevant to my argument. How does FSMism differ greatly from Christianity? And in what way does that difference influence my initial argument?
Are you trying to argue that some religions have certain creation stories that would conflict with what ID claims? (If so, I'd be interested to know what claims you think contradict and where - I certainly agree there must be some, but know of no examples myself)
Correction - you take jabs at ID because you act really, really, really stupid because you can't see past your blind dogma to actually *consider* an opposing viewpoint. Instead of using reason, you have to resort to throwing around insults, misrepresentation, and blind ignorance. If you took the time to understand what you are criticising - act like a rational human being - you would see your diatribe is nothing more than bluster mixed with fear.
Three points, and please take the time to consider them:
1. ID is falsifiable - Michael Behe's claim to irreducible complexity can be countered in more than one way - one is to show an indirect darwinian pathway that would produce the IC in question. Another, which Kenneth Miller proposed, and Michael Behe agreed, would be to knock out one of the parts of an IC system and see if evolution is sufficient to replace it. All ID really says is that certain signposts are indications of design. One need demonstrate that such a signpost can be generated by chance, necessity, or some combination in order to show ID is misguided or wrong
2. Falsifiability is not universally accepted - There are philosophers of science who do not think that falsifiability is a necessary criterion for a scientific theory. While I think that ID is falsifiable, you are wrong to say that a theory *must* be falsifiable to be counted as scientific. You are wrong in the sense that people we have a right to listen to will disagree with you - this is by no means a universally accepted criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms)
3. You contradict yourself. You said "Every argument that ID proponents make against evolution is wrong- every single one." You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either every argument that ID proponents make against evolution is wrong, and therefore falsifiable, or no argument that ID makes is wrong because it is not falsifiable. Make up your mind what you want to believe. You're confused because you want to use every insult or strategy in the book to oppose ID on irrational grounds, so you fling them out at random without even considering what you're saying.
A completely unfounded claim. It may be that it was started by "a bunch of religious people", but that's hardly relevant. You have no reason at all to say they have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory and of science in general. Just because you are incapable of understanding what they are arguing does not mean the fault lies with them.
Such bold statements are more indicative of blind adherence to a particular belief than of any rational statement
*sigh* It seems the word "grace" is missing from your dictionary. Assume the worst. Yes, many ID proponents are religious. Think about it - they're promoting a theory that would indicate that life on this planet was put here by a designing intelligence. Do you think atheists would rush to that? No! ID is a theory that happens to simultaneously be highly credible, worth considering, and of serious consequence to atheist beliefs. But just because you are afraid of the consequences of ID to your own beliefs does not make it wrong. You're not ra
William Dembski mentioned him/her in his book The Design Revolution. I would have to find the exact page reference, which I've lost unfortunately. So I'd prefer you consider the Fred Hoyle reference so I don't need to spend 30 minutes trying to find it :)
Thanks for your response. This is only a *very* brief overview. William Dembski talks about specified complexity, an attribute which can help us in detecting design. Basically, if we find specified complexity, then we have a clear indicator of design. This is not to say that all design is accompanied by specified complexity - but rather that all specified complexity is the product of design somewhere down the chain. eg, a photocopy of a book was not designed, but the specified complexity of that photocopy (ie, the words or pictures it copied) can be traced back to an intelligent designer.
This method of detecting design can be uncontroversially applied to various areas of life such as cryptology, criminology, etc. In all cases where we can independently verify the origin of specified complexity we can confirm that it was indeed the product of intelligence. So, then, to show the ID project misguided one need demonstrate instances of specified complexity that originate independent from intelligence. So that they are sufficiently explained apart from intelligent design.
Where this becomes controversial is when these methods (which we use all the time anyway) are applied to biology. Here people expect that the answers to origins will be natural - but ID shows the presence of specified complexity, and that this is properly explained via intelligent design.
So as you can see, this is not a negative project. It's not just "we can't explain it so God must've done it". It's "in all other cases specified complexity is a sure indicator of intelligent design, and when we apply this method to biology we find signs of intelligent design". Biology wants to be the exception, but we have no reason beyond wishful thinking to believe that's the case.
I recommend you take the time to read articles by the discovery institute, especially those by William Dembski who does a better job than most I've seen at drawing together Michael Behe's arguments and showing how they work in the overall project ID is working on. He has some articles at www.designinference.com - and perhaps your local university will have books written by him.
This argument from Dawkins doesn't work, for a few reasons: 1. If specified complexity is a reliable indicator of design, and biological systems show specified complexity, then it doesn't matter if we're moving the problem back one level - that's what the evidence says, so we just have to accept it and take it back a level and deal with it
2. It may be that this infinite regress requires us to change our expectations - eg, that intelligence, or minds, are distinct from the brain - perhaps reality is at its foundation mental and not physical. It may be that there is an as yet undiscovered physicalist answer to the origin of the upper designer. Just because the answers lead you to places you find uncomfortable does not mean that they are wrong
3. Sometimes it just is the case that one designer is to find its explanation in another, or that one thing is to be explained in terms of things more complex than itself. For example, a tv remote is complex, yet I have no problem with explaining its origins in terms of something even more complex. Just because you may want life on earth to be the beginning of the ch
The stupid thing is that the FSM was invented as a parody to counter Intelligent Design, not religion in general. I've no idea how they think that FSM makes any telling point against ID, but sure enough:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Why is this stupid? Because if ID is correct, it allows for FSM as much as Christianity or any other religion that involves a creator. Asking ID to be taught in schools does not entail teaching any specific religion. To make this point clearer - ID is an overarching project that encompasses many religions and materialist scenarios - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ancient Egyptian beliefs, FSM, and more. So FSM is a *subset* of all the possible frameworks if ID is correct. So to ask that FSM be taught alongside ID is to show a category misunderstanding. ID does not stand in contrast with FSM, but rather FSM falls under ID (as does directed panspermia and other non-religious creation scenarios). Teaching ID in schools would *not* mean teaching a specific idea, such as Christianity, with it.
It is possible to believe the truth about something, but have come to believe it for terrible reasons. Pointing out that your reasons for believing something are absurd is not the same thing as saying your conclusion is wrong - just that you aren't justified in holding your belief.
1. Numbers seem to have a timeless existence - it makes no sence to ask "when was 2?" We experience some concepts that are in fact timeless. If time did not exist (and we can ponder this), then we think that numbers could still exist. Animals can't exist without time, nor can rocks, but numbers can
2. Current cosmology in the works of Einstein and others shows that time did "begin" to exist at the point of the big bang. ie, time is not inseparably linked with the idea of existence. Something can exist, but not be connected to time. It is atemporal. To ask what caused the big bang is a very reasonable question, but also the thing that caused it will be timeless, since time was a creation at the time of the big bang.
In summary, I don't see any reason why you think it's not reasonable to think that things can be atemporal.
I'm sorry, due to some confusion I thought you and the AC were referring to Dawkins' argument on the subject. He exclaims that you can't explain biological life by appealing to something more complex. He says that organised complexity is the very thing we're attempting to explain, so appealing to something even more complex (God) is a ridiculous answer to the question.I was trying to pre-empt this argument of Dawkins, which is itself foolish, and no more than sophistry. I was pointing out that sometimes organised complexity is to find its explanation in something even more complex. In this case the TV finds its explanation in human engineers. The reasoning of Dawkins would have us believe it is irrational to explain complexity by something even more complex.
I'm not saying I don't understand how life started. That's the atheist. In the atheist's worldview there is no good explanation now for how life arose from non-life. As a result they invent explanations - so why can't the theist do this? (not that I think we are - just want to know why something's ok for the atheist, but not the theist)The atheist has to explain how something came from nothing. The theist makes the very reasonable step of arguing that if the universe began to exist, it must have had a cause. The atheist takes the unreasonable step of saying that even if the universe began to exist, it doesn't necessarily need a cause. The theist doesn't invent deities to explain things that can be explained in other ways. There is a very real problem about how both life arose initially, and how the universe began, for the atheist. The theist postulates the most reasonable explanation - that the universe had a cause, and that cause we call God. A timeless cause that needs no explanation for its origin, for there was no beginning of it.
Given the current cosmology of the universe, we believe time began with the big bang. If time began with the big bang, this means there is no "before" the big bang. If there is no time before the big bang, then the cause of the universe itself must have been timeless. And a timeless cause needs no beginning, no creation. The argument is sometimes presented as thus:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
Note that only those things which begin to exist need a cause. God, being timeless, has no beginning and therefore no need for a cause. This doesn't mean that God didn't have a cause, just that we have no need to look back further in the chain. We can reasonably stop there.
Consider numbers. Do numbers have a beginning? Or do they just have a timeless sort of existence? Do we need to look for a beginning for them? I don't think so. In the same way, God can just exist, and need no explanation of origin - for He exists timelessly, and therefore needs no cause.
Dawkins made this (and numerous other) mistake in his recent book. The fact is, when we find complex things, it is often the case that these complex things were caused by even more complex things. Dawkins argues that this is not the case. But consider a TV. Is it absurd to think that we should conceive of something more complex than the TV to explain its origins? Of course not. There is nothing irrational about taking one step back to find the cause.
Hopefully what I said will explain this in a way that might make a little sense. As do IIt's rather a matter of perspective. As an atheist, one would expect to find features maladapted or no longer necessary. As a theist, you might still think some vestigial features could exist, but you'd expect the list to be quite small or zero. It's not really evidence for common ancestry. In fact, I've seen the opposite - the human body seems to be more and more intricately constructed so that all components are there.
Whatever your reason for thinking this, I don't know. But if you think you'll persuade me, or indeed any theist, by telling us we're liars then you'll be sorely disappointed. I know I don't lie, so telling me I am a liar is not going to achieve anything. Who are you hoping to convince? Or do you have a chip on your shoulder from when you went to church, and now you think all theists are your natural enemies? Perhaps some of that Dawkins hostility has found its way to you. Whatever your problem is, there's no way you'll discuss anything meaningfully with a theist with your current attitude.
I quoted that article not to justify any YEC belief, but just to show you that they don't reject natural selection. It doesn't matter if the conclusions they draw are completely wrong - the fact remains that they believe in natural selection and a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
To anyone who knows something about YEC, your statements look foolish and uninformed. You say, "They only acknowledge that changes in allele frequencies may have occurred, because it doesn't seem to contradict the bible and because too many of Christians accept some kind of evolution for them to completely deny it". That's just ridiculous. Maybe you'll persuade some high school atheist who doesn't know what he's talking about - but you shouldn't wonder that the YEC ignores you when you say such stupid things. All you're saying is "they're lying". You offer no reason for someone to believe this other than your incredulity.
I'm not here to defend the YEC position, just to point out your ignorance, so I won't be commenting on this. I don't use the term Darwinism as a pejorative. YEC is not a pejorative, just a way of identifying a particular set of beliefs. A Darwinist as it is mostly used refers to someone who not only believes in a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, but also the idea that all living things share a single common ancestor, and usually also the belief that the first life arose spontaneously solely through natural processes not guided by any intelligence.That is all. Evolution is a word that is easily used equivocally. By using the term Darwinist it makes it much more clearly what is spoken about. If you like, the term Neo-Darwinist is used usually to take into account the modern views where they differ from Darwin.
As for me being a YEC, I'm not (though I once was). But maybe you'll just accuse me of lying too...seems like an easy way to always think you're right.
I can appreciate you thinking that, but it just isn't the case. If you think about it, you will soon realise that similarities in the makeup of various living things is as much evidence of common design as it is for common descent. Real world designed things bear that fact out. It is true that the common features of living things is explainable under the theory of common descent. It is not true, however, that this is an evidence of common descent, because it's equally well explained under common design.
You might also appreciate (even if you disagree) the idea that most or all who believe in design believe that there were only a handful of original living things created (perhaps 50), and from those evolved all the existing living things we see today.
Regarding creation out of thin air, I find it much more difficult to believe that this universe came from nothing as opposed from something. This is one of the many reasons why I could never be an atheist.
So, it turns out that they're not refusing the evidence you cited, but in fact embrace it, and so your response is "they're lying! They really don't believe it, but they're lying to us to suck us in". Well, you're wrong. I'm trying to help you understand something here, because it's quite obvious you're quick to criticise but slow to understand that which you reject. The YEC position (and I don't consider myself a YEC) is that natural selection and changes in allele frequencies in a population over time have played a *very* large part in the 6000 year history of the world, and their worldview. For you to say that they only concede it so as to not lose membership is a major (yet common) misunderstanding of the YEC position. I direct you to:i nches.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/f
Most people are blissfully unaware of the objections cited to Darwinism, and so they wonder at how people can reject it. Maybe taking the time to understand the objections might make things a bit clearer.
This is probably correct, but they don't expect this to happen. Since for them the Bible is revealed truth from God, it will *never* contradict facts of the world. So if something is actually true, then the Bible will never claim that it is false.Get a clue. Or at least have the decency to know a little something about what you criticise.
As surprising as it may sound to you as someone who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about, Creationists *do* believe in evolution. They believe that mutations occur, that children differ from their parents, and that bacteria adapt to novel situations. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Answers in Genesis website, it shouldn't take you too long to find that out.
What they dispute is the idea that all living things share a single common ancestor. They just don't believe that the dog and the shark are distantly related. But they do believe that evolution, defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time, does occur.
If these things go underground quietly, then it will be as good as winning a debate. People won't see it or hear about it, won't think about it.
If it enters public discussion, it gives the impression that there are two sides to the debate. And if there are two sides to the debate, then it seems rational for a person to sit on either side, so long as they have some reasons to give (whether or not they are good).
Censoring this DVD will go a long way towards stopping the ideas from spreading...much more so than reasoned and open debate. Give people a forum to discuss their ideas, and suddenly they have more advertising than they could ever have hoped for to persuade those who are likely to be persuaded. Hide it from the public eye and they'll find it much more difficult to spread their ideas.
Note: I'm not saying whether this approach is right or wrong, but rather just how effective it is.
Your examples of a sphere and a quantum "wavicle" do not present breaches of the law of excluded middle. They represent misapplications of it. A photon can be both a wave and a particle - this is an example of something thought physically impossible, but it is not logically impossible. The logical presentation would be something like [Ex Px] (Wx & Px) - there's nothing logically impossible about that. If using the law of excluded middle, you would state that it is either true that a photon can be both a wave and a particle, or that a photon cannot be both a wave and a particle. The second was thought to be true, but we now know the first is in fact true. This does not break the law of excluded middle. Perhaps if you show me the google link you were reading, I can help clear it up for you.