The IDEA obituary

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Casey Luskin: "Students I talk to feel the scientific evidence for ID is stronger than ever..."

Well, it is certainly true that the evidence for ID has never been stronger.... As for what these students "feel," that is simply irrelevant.

I've actually got excellent evidence which disproves ID, but... can't post... forcefield blocking my hand from keyboard...

Well, I for one think that Casey can easily resurrect the IDEA Clubs and adapt them so that they can evolve in something that more accurately reflects the current state of ID Theory. That's right people, say hello to Casey's all -new, and now with more truthiness - "CASEY'S BAD IDEA" Clubs.

Up will be called down, and bottom up - and Demsbksi's Famous Sweater will be cutting edge fashion and what ALL the College Kidz want for hangin in teh hood. (Where "teh hood" = Christian church basements.)

And this time he's gonna tie them into a reeal Kool Web-tubes site - maybe call it "Overwhelming Evidence" or something like that, to REALLY get Teh Kidz attention!

What? Really, Overwhelming Evidence is now what???
Beautiful... cary On Young Casey, carry on!

How many people remember how being a Christian was a requirement to be an IDEA Club's officer?

Fascinating how the evidence keeps leading us back to the obvious

The IDEA Center also requires its club presidents to be Christian. Luskin explained that as a Christian group, "we wanted to be totally open about who we thought the designer was." But, he added, "this belief about the identity of the designer is our religious belief; it's not a part of ID theory."

P.S. - In some other thread, there are been some discussion about whether the IDEA club, led by Casey Luskin, is a religious club. Despite the requirement that its officers be Christians, Casey says they are just a scientific club. However, notice that Casey is speaking at the Youth Conference, and his IDEA club is advertised as “a ministry focused on equipping students to promote Intelligent Design.” [my emphasis]

Matt G said: Casey Luskin: "Students I talk to feel the scientific evidence for ID is stronger than ever..." Well, it is certainly true that the evidence for ID has never been stronger.... As for what these students "feel," that is simply irrelevant.

Matt G said: Casey Luskin: "Students I talk to feel the scientific evidence for ID is stronger than ever..." Well, it is certainly true that the evidence for ID has never been stronger.... As for what these students "feel," that is simply irrelevant.

Casey also accuses Allen of “demonization,” however its very hard for me to see how reporting when a set of web pages was last updated counts as demonization. As Casey should realize, an update date is just a fact, not a theory. :)

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

I found it amusing that the words before 'demonization' are 'typical Darwinian name-calling and'. Emphasis mine. :)

But, he added, “this belief about the identity of the designer is our religious belief; it’s not a part of ID theory.”

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Venus Mousetrap said: I've actually got excellent evidence which disproves ID, but... can't post... forcefield blocking my hand from keyboard...

J-Dog said: Well, I for one think that Casey can easily resurrect the IDEA Clubs and adapt them so that they can evolve in something that more accurately reflects the current state of ID Theory. That's right people, say hello to Casey's all -new, and now with more truthiness - "CASEY'S BAD IDEA" Clubs. Up will be called down, and bottom up - and Demsbksi's Famous Sweater will be cutting edge fashion and what ALL the College Kidz want for hangin in teh hood. (Where "teh hood" = Christian church basements.) And this time he's gonna tie them into a reeal Kool Web-tubes site - maybe call it "Overwhelming Evidence" or something like that, to REALLY get Teh Kidz attention! What? Really, Overwhelming Evidence is now what??? Beautiful... cary On Young Casey, carry on!

PvM said: And

P.S. - In some other thread, there are been some discussion about whether the IDEA club, led by Casey Luskin, is a religious club. Despite the requirement that its officers be Christians, Casey says they are just a scientific club. However, notice that Casey is speaking at the Youth Conference, and his IDEA club is advertised as “a ministry focused on equipping students to promote Intelligent Design.” [my emphasis]

John Kwok said: But I think you're wrong. He's going to call them the "Evo Strengths and Weaknesses" clubs. Heard he's busy establishing chapters now in Texas.

eric said: Its even more irrelevant that that, Matt. Casey is referring specifically to students that started IDEA clubs. So his statement is nothing more than an example of selection bias. Actually I should call it a classic example, since surveying a set of club founders on whether they believe in the clubs' mission could be used as a teaching example of what selection bias is.

Venus Mousetrap said: I found it amusing that the words before 'demonization' are 'typical Darwinian name-calling and'. Emphasis mine. :)

I go to college at Maryland University - which is mainly used my military service members - and even there, its a very hostile environment for religion in general.

Then again, I'm a philosophy student, and watch Christian idealists get savaged by skeptical thinkers on a daily basis. I've seen ID raise its head once when the subject of cosmology came up (the philosophical theories, not the branch of science) - the best way I can describe it is a systematic deconstruction of an idea, each student taking a small chink out of its armor until It was left naked as a "because god said so" theory.

Needless to say, it was very entertaining.

SWT said:

Venus Mousetrap said: I found it amusing that the words before 'demonization' are 'typical Darwinian name-calling and'. Emphasis mine. :)

Presumably, in Darwinian name calling, people try various simple modifications of successful insults and build increasingly more effective insults in successive rounds of argument. Perhaps they even occasionally develop complex interlocking insults in which if even a single letter is omitted, the insult is meaningless.

SWT said:

Venus Mousetrap said: I found it amusing that the words before 'demonization' are 'typical Darwinian name-calling and'. Emphasis mine. :)

Presumably, in Darwinian name calling, people try various simple modifications of successful insults and build increasingly more effective insults in successive rounds of argument. Perhaps they even occasionally develop complex interlocking insults in which if even a single letter is omitted, the insult is meaningless.

IDEA spreads the religious views and the fear of the truths of science of an individual. Those who started the movement in university and college views will not change after graduating.

Allen MacNeill concerns are understandable, since he is a university professor of biology and evolution. The treat of IDEA is real, because its only purpose is to spread misinformation and damage careers of prospective scientist.

The intellectually void and philosophically weak arguments of Intelligent Design/Creationism will exist for a long time. With that said, it is important to continue to teach what scientific enquiry is.

Additionally, students acolytes who start IDEA Clubs in the post-Dover era face new challenges that students didn’t used to face: Students Acolytes I talk to feel have been taught that the scientific evidence for ID is stronger than ever, but they see are afraid of the persecution summary and proper dismissal of ID proponents in the academy (persecution informed criticism which has dramatically increased in the wake of Dover). Many pro-ID students are afraid; they are intimidated by Darwinist intolerance and fear that if they come out of the closet about being pro-ID, they might be ending their careers before they even begin. And they haven't the first idea what to do next.

But, [Casey] added, “this belief about the identity of the designer is our religious belief; it’s not a part of ID theory.”

Pete Dunkelberg said:

But, [Casey] added, “this belief about the identity of the designer is our religious belief; it’s not a part of ID theory.”

Coincidentally, ID has no theory.

SWT, what you said is really funny! And probably true, more's the joke. Tip 'o the hat . . .

PvM said: So true. But while some ID proponents are honest enough to admit this, some pretend otherwise.

Pete Dunkelberg said:

But, [Casey] added, “this belief about the identity of the designer is our religious belief; it’s not a part of ID theory.”

Coincidentally, ID has no theory.

Hey, if you're going to reference a Luskin response, how about linking to it so we can enjoy the whole thing?

Calvin said: Hey, if you're going to reference a Luskin response, how about linking to it so we can enjoy the whole thing?

PvM said: Sure, of course a simple google search is almost as trivial.

Perhaps a basic introduction to Google can be helpful. Select 4 to 5 words from a phrase and paste them into google. Place double quotes around them (actually a singled double quote at the beginning is sufficient and press search. If still too many results are returned add a few more words. If no results are found, avoid entries with single quotes in words (such as used in contractions).

Thus "The IDEA Center also requires its club presidents to be Christian" returns two matches

same with

"in some other thread, there are been some discussion about whether

Use your powers wisely

Thank you (for nothing), but I have tried these strategies, and they aren't working (possibly because google.com.au is handling the search). And even if they were working, it is just elementary courtesy to spend 60 seconds to put the link in the original post, and save dozens of people having to do the search themselves.

Since there are no doubt plenty of Darwin-bashers on
campus, one interesting question is why IDEA doesn't seem
to be flying.
I would speculate that it has to do with the fact that,
although the DI has been able to attract a faction of
more-or-less secular fringe-science types, the bulk of the
Darwin-basher community remains traditionally creationist.

While traditional creationists will go along with the DI
as it serves their interests, they have no affection for
the "don't ask don't tell" routine -- they want to
express their creationist beliefs, that's the message,
why hide it? (OK, that business with Federal courts is
a problem but still ... )
So IDEA really has little attraction, with the creationists
preferring their traditional organizations.

Cheers -- MrG

Calvin said: Thank you (for nothing), but I have tried these strategies, and they aren't working (possibly because google.com.au is handling the search). And even if they were working, it is just elementary courtesy to spend 60 seconds to put the link in the original post, and save dozens of people having to do the search themselves.

In an effort to test your hypothesis I tried

Google.com.au search and found similar results.

Weird.

Calvin said: Thank you (for nothing), but I have tried these strategies, and they aren't working (possibly because google.com.au is handling the search). And even if they were working, it is just elementary courtesy to spend 60 seconds to put the link in the original post, and save dozens of people having to do the search themselves.

Vic Hutchison said: Hutchison nevertheless sees the requirement as a contradiction. "It just proves they are lying when they say it's not religious-based," he said. For Hutchison, the campus IDEA club could be a land mine. Recently a faculty member tried to "sneak in a course on intelligent design" by e-mailing IDEA club members to generate support, Hutchison said. After opposition from other faculty, the teacher backed down, he said.

PvM said: Even if it enables these people to find materials on the internet without others holding their hands?

Calvin said:

PvM said: Even if it enables these people to find materials on the internet without others holding their hands?

YES. I wasn't aware it was a moral failing to supply a link, instead of forcing people to hunt for it. You've made three responses so far, and - I - still - don't - have - the - goddam - link. KP: Thanks, but that's not the right link - it's an interesting article, it doesn't contain the quote from Luskin that's in this blog post.

Is this the link you're looking for?

It's a comment Luskin posted at the Evolution List blog.

Calvin said:

PvM said: Even if it enables these people to find materials on the internet without others holding their hands?

YES. I wasn't aware it was a moral failing to supply a link, instead of forcing people to hunt for it. You've made three responses so far, and - I - still - don't - have - the - goddam - link. KP: Thanks, but that's not the right link - it's an interesting article, it doesn't contain the quote from Luskin that's in this blog post.

Research? I Don't Expect Any

ndt said: It's a comment Luskin posted at the Evolution List blog.

42 comments, and yet not even one to defend poor Casey?

Crudely Wrott said: Fixed. Except for the penultimate sentence. They can have that one. I ain't touchin' it.

Rolf said: 42 comments, and yet not even one to defend poor Casey?

When Hannah Maxson started an intelligent design club at Cornell University last fall, a handful of science majors showed up for the first meeting. Today, the high-profile club boasts more than 80 members.

J-Dog said: And this time he's gonna tie them into a reeal Kool Web-tubes site

IDEA Is certainly not dead. Since IDEA hired its first full-time staff member in 2008, it is now re-able to keep up with the demand that exists for starting IDEA Clubs. If IDEA went through any waning periods, it had far more to do with a lack of staffing to keep up with the demand from students than a lack of demand from students. This week alone the IDEA Center received requests to start about 3 new IDEA Clubs. Additionally, students who start IDEA Clubs in the post-Dover era face new challenges that students didn't used to face: Students I talk to feel the scientific evidence for ID is stronger than ever, but they see the persecution of ID proponents in the academy (persecution which has dramatically increased in the wake of Dover). Many pro-ID students are afraid; they are intimidated by Darwinist intolerance and fear that if they come out of the closet about being pro-ID, they might be ending their careers before they even begin.

As far as Casey Luskin is concerned, ID will continue to be a great success as long as he can continue to draw a regular paycheck from the DI instead of having to get a *real* job.

When the DI money finally dries up, it will be time for Casey to move on to Costco.

Rolf said: 42 comments, and yet not even one to defend poor Casey?

I have mentioned before that taking shots at Mr. Luskin seems unsporting.

Yes. Rather like tripping up runners at the Special Olympics. I feel ashamed.

Lazy Day said: The demand is still strong, IDEA just had staffing problems - besides that, these budding scientists are afraid for their academic careers, that's why demand has tapered off - which it hasn't.

caerbannog said: Yes. Rather like tripping up runners at the Special Olympics.

I feel ashamed.

Mr. Luskin draw a regular pay check?

I haven't checked his bio recently but as I recall Casey Luskin is an attorney and also has a Master's in geology. I would be surprised if DI is paying Luskin anywhere near what he could draw by practicing either of his "real jobs" (professions).

Anyway, the future looks bright for Luskin and the DI people.
This is the way it is going to play out. Obama is basically going to be a scripture-based President. That's his background and his inclination. The invocation at his inauguration is the keynote to his presidency. In 2012 the Republicans are probably going to run the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, a devout theist, who is anti-gay, anti-abortion and is in a Covenant Marriage with his wife.
So, as far as any political head wind is needed it seems to be on the horizon. Luskin is well positioned.

Dear Silver Fox,

Not only does Mr. Luskin possess a MS degree in geology - I believe it is from UCSD (University of California, San Diego) - but, aside from his law degree, has a full-time job with the Dishonesty Institute.

I hope your predictions won't be borne out.

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

Dear Allen -

Your personal experience with the Cornell IDEA Club is in stark contrast to what I recall when the Brown University chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ created an ad hoc "Origins Committee" - of which I was the sole "evolutionist" - organized a debate between then Assistant Professor of Biology Kenneth R. Miller and Dr. Henry Morris, Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research (which, I believe, was based at La Jolla, CA then). The debate was held at Brown's hockey rink and was "sold out" - with Brown students in a substantial minority (regrettably most were members of the Campus Crusade chapter) - since there were busload after busload of Fundamentalist Protestant Christian congregations from MA, RI and CT.

I hope your relatively recent experience is exactly what we might expect at a prominent American university like Cornell, but I am not optimistic, especially in light of what I had witnessed "eons" ago.

Appreciatively yours,

John

...some final bug/feature caused their local website to devolve into 404 Hell...

No, that was caused by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Silver Fox said: Mr. Luskin draw a regular pay check? I haven't checked his bio recently but as I recall Casey Luskin is an attorney and also has a Master's in geology. I would be surprised if DI is paying Luskin anywhere near what he could draw by practicing either of his "real jobs" (professions). Anyway, the future looks bright for Luskin and the DI people. This is the way it is going to play out. Obama is basically going to be a scripture-based President. That's his background and his inclination. The invocation at his inauguration is the keynote to his presidency. In 2012 the Republicans are probably going to run the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, a devout theist, who is anti-gay, anti-abortion and is in a Covenant Marriage with his wife. So, as far as any political head wind is needed it seems to be on the horizon. Luskin is well positioned.

In 2012 the Republicans are probably going to run the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, a devout theist, who is anti-gay, anti-abortion and is in a Covenant Marriage with his wife.

FL said: However, in order to keep this post relevant to PT's focus on evolution and science education, it should be pointed out that Gov. Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law this year. (A true barometer of a world-class president!). FL

FL said:

In 2012 the Republicans are probably going to run the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, a devout theist, who is anti-gay, anti-abortion and is in a Covenant Marriage with his wife.

An excellent resume indeed --- let's just hope our nation survives Obama long enough to vote for Jindal. However, in order to keep this post relevant to PT's focus on evolution and science education, it should be pointed out that Gov. Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law this year. (A true barometer of a world-class president!). FL

The reason there is a high divorce rate is because the majority of people enter into marriage with unrealistic expectations.

I once saw an article that claimed that a marriage that was most likely to succeed was one where the bride went into it thinking, "he'll do" (as opposed to all that unrealistic "knight in shining armor" stuff).

Not only did he sign the La. Science Education Act into law, but, earlier in his life, he reportedly had some sort of participatory role in an exorcism. Do you think McCain was hauling him out to his Arizona digs to talk to Bobby about casting out demons?

Bobby has this inscrutable charm and magnetism that is seen only in one of Indian descent. He sometimes thinks faster than he can talk and that's a mild problem, but people generally see that as a sign of extraordinary intelligence which he is said to have.

The Republicans are salivating for 2012.

I'm salivating for 2012. Can't wait to watch Jindal and Palin try to out-Jesus each other.

Spiritual Warfare, anyone?

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1294-jindal

Silver Fox said: Bobby has this inscrutable charm and magnetism that is seen only in one of Indian descent. He sometimes thinks faster than he can talk and that's a mild problem.....

strangely, reading over the original list of deserted websites gave me a little chill - it felt eerily like watching one of those post-apocalypse scenes where tumbleweeds blow down an empty city (and if you like seriously bad acting, try to see the Vincent Price version of Omega Man)

Interesting. But keep in mind that they could be lying dormant, waiting for the next big political action.

ID people don't have much to do with themselves on the pure science front. So I think it might be predictable that they would be least active during non-ID political seasons. Ten bucks says that with the passing of the focus on Obama (maybe by late 2009), the movement will again be in full swing.

NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Interesting. But keep in mind that they could be lying dormant, waiting for the next big political action.

PvM said:

Interesting. But keep in mind that they could be lying dormant, waiting for the next big political action.

Sure, ID is working on 'academic freedom' which however does not mean the right to be heard but rather the right to speak. Understanding the weakness of ID being the lack of scientific content, they have already started to implicate censorship and peer review as somehow being the cause of lack of ID contributing to science. Of course, there appears to be a much simpler alternative explanation: ID has no scientific content. Even on the peer review point, ID has avoided scrutiny even though it is now slowly admitting to the fact that ID was without content (Demsbki's latest position on the explanatory filter comes to mind). Who are they kidding?

notedscholar said: ID people don't have much to do with themselves on the pure science front.

John Kwok said: They've had nearly twenty years to demonstrate how and why their mendacious intellectual pornography could be valid mainstream science BUT THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT YET. Must we wait another twenty years?

We need to be a little bit cautious about the importance of science. First, science does not DIScover anything; it simple UNcovers what is already there, either in actuality or in potency. There is a kind of entropy that flows between actuality and potency. There is going to be a critical point when equilibrium will establish and at that point a well constructed philosophy of ontology will be enabled to explain the whole; a sort of explanation of everything. At that point, intelligent design or creationism might be the logical teleology

Silver Fox said: There is a kind of entropy that flows between actuality and potency. There is going to be a critical point when equilibrium will establish and at that point a well constructed philosophy of ontology will be enabled to explain the whole; a sort of explanation of everything. At that point, intelligent design or creationism might be the logical teleology

I think Silver Fox is on to something!

Yes, let's be cautious about the importance of Science!!!!

Silver Fox will lead the way by doing the following:

1. Not use any produce, process or knowledge developed by Science, let's say, since 1500.

2. No more computers or commenting on blogs.

3. No cell phones.

4. No modern medicine. Silver Fox will either pray to get healed or seek a herbalist.

5. No driving, no flying, no powered boats.

Because it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO important to Silver Fox that Science can't explain "everything", Silver Fox will eschew Science as a demonstration of his solidarity.

Right, SF?

Silver Fox said: We need to be a little bit cautious about the importance of science. First, science does not DIScover anything; it simple UNcovers what is already there, either in actuality or in potency. There is a kind of entropy that flows between actuality and potency. There is going to be a critical point when equilibrium will establish and at that point a well constructed philosophy of ontology will be enabled to explain the whole; a sort of explanation of everything. At that point, intelligent design or creationism might be the logical teleology

Dan said: I will add this to my list of inane misconceptions concerning entropy.

Silver Fox said: First, science does not DIScover anything; it simple UNcovers what is already there, either in actuality or in potency.

Coincidentally, ID has no theory.

— Pete Dunkelberg

PvM said:

Interesting. But keep in mind that they could be lying dormant, waiting for the next big political action.

Sure, ID is working on 'academic freedom' which however does not mean the right to be heard but rather the right to speak. Understanding the weakness of ID being the lack of scientific content, they have already started to implicate censorship and peer review as somehow being the cause of lack of ID contributing to science. Of course, there appears to be a much simpler alternative explanation: ID has no scientific content. Even on the peer review point, ID has avoided scrutiny even though it is now slowly admitting to the fact that ID was without content (Demsbki's latest position on the explanatory filter comes to mind). Who are they kidding?

Stanton said:

notedscholar said: ID people don't have much to do with themselves on the pure science front.

Just a quibble, but, Intelligent Design people don't have anything to do with any science fronts, especially pure science.

On that note, it has always amazed me that IDists don’t just work in Philosophy of Science,

"Wow! The cell phone was already there."

In fact it was. The problem you're having is in understanding potency in metaphysics (ontology). Of course, I could refer you to Aquinas, but that would probably be offensive since he is a notorious "Godbot".

By eliminating potency as a necessary prerequisite for being, you could, by logical extension from the cell phone, say that man had invented the entire universe. Do you really want to stick with that line of reasoning?

Silver Fox said: "Wow! The cell phone was already there." In fact it was. The problem you're having is in understanding potency in metaphysics (ontology). Of course, I could refer you to Aquinas, but that would probably be offensive since he is a notorious "Godbot". By eliminating potency as a necessary prerequisite for being, you could, by logical extension from the cell phone, say that man had invented the entire universe. Do you really want to stick with that line of reasoning?

"disappearance of kelp beds; recovery of marine ecosystems"

Those examples are precise expressions of the ontological relationship between being and potency. The "recovery" occurs precisely because it is recoverable. Same with the cell phone. Has anyone invented the wapacord (there is no such thing)? Does that mean that a wapacord could not be discovered? No. Does that mean that a wapacord is undiscoverable? No. What it means is that if a wapacord is capable of existing, then there is potency for being and it might or might not be discovered. If these is not potency for a wapacord to exist then it will never be.

Again, your confusion is over the ontological relationship between being and potency-to-be. Atheists are always asking for proof. Well that is the rational proof and it explains the nature of being. It is at the very least as rational as trying to explain how slimy little creatures crawled on shore in the Devonian era to become tetrapods, or how to explain huge gaps in transitional forms or the huge gaps in geological fossils. You could adopt the Stephen Jay Gould "punctuated evolution" theory. Maybe you think that's rational.

hmmm, the cell phone was "already there", but only in a sense that could be "uncovered" by the careful sifting of science

but this talk of cell phones suggests what seems to be the fundamental statement of ID: "I'm walking along in an electronic store. Suddenly I come across a mobile phone, with all it's buttons and circuitry. It seems somehow too complicated to arise by chance, so I can only assume it was created by a supernatural process. I ask no further questions". Seems to capture the essence of ID a little better than the original Paley IMO

The mobile phone you run across in an electronic store was not created by a supernatural being; it was developed by a scientist or technician sitting at his desk working out all those circuits. That's the actuality of the phone. The potentiality of that phone to come-to-be was part of a designer creation. It really doesn't have much to do with complexity; you could say the same thing about the chair you're sitting in.

Silver Fox said: "disappearance of kelp beds; recovery of marine ecosystems" Those examples are precise expressions of the ontological relationship between being and potency. The "recovery" occurs precisely because it is recoverable. Same with the cell phone. Has anyone invented the wapacord (there is no such thing)? Does that mean that a wapacord could not be discovered? No. Does that mean that a wapacord is undiscoverable? No. What it means is that if a wapacord is capable of existing, then there is potency for being and it might or might not be discovered. If these is not potency for a wapacord to exist then it will never be. Again, your confusion is over the ontological relationship between being and potency-to-be. Atheists are always asking for proof. Well that is the rational proof and it explains the nature of being. It is at the very least as rational as trying to explain how slimy little creatures crawled on shore in the Devonian era to become tetrapods, or how to explain huge gaps in transitional forms or the huge gaps in geological fossils. You could adopt the Stephen Jay Gould "punctuated evolution" theory. Maybe you think that's rational.

FL said:

In 2012 the Republicans are probably going to run the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, a devout theist, who is anti-gay, anti-abortion and is in a Covenant Marriage with his wife.

An excellent resume indeed --- let's just hope our nation survives Obama long enough to vote for Jindal. However, in order to keep this post relevant to PT's focus on evolution and science education, it should be pointed out that Gov. Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law this year. (A true barometer of a world-class president!). FL

Punctuated evolution (equilibrium) is rational in that it is plausible. However what is plausible in not NECESSARLILY true. Throughout scientific history science presented the plausible explanation to explain the evidence available. Science does not give us truth; it gives us the most plausible explanation for the data available. Throughout history, science has had to go back and reframe its explanations, i.e. geocentric universe, ether theory, etc. Since man appears hard wired to believe in a God, atheists have a problem. So, they have always had a tendency to engage in the apotheosis of science which, unfortunately, has given them the paradox of an ever changing God.

Atheists are always asking for proof. Well that is the rational proof and it explains the nature of being. It is at the very least as rational as trying to explain how slimy little creatures crawled on shore in the Devonian era to become tetrapods, or how to explain huge gaps in transitional forms or the huge gaps in geological fossils. You could adopt the Stephen Jay Gould “punctuated evolution” theory. Maybe you think that’s rational.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”

Tarnished Fox, please explain how you tell the difference between a wapacord that will be invented next year and a wapacord, that by chance will never be discovered or invented. Potency can not be known or studied in any way, we most take it on faith, like God. You probably consider us lucky to have you around to tell us about Potency, but we are not buying. Good-bye.

Silver Fox said: Does that mean that a wapacord could not be discovered? No. Does that mean that a wapacord is undiscoverable? No. What it means is that if a wapacord is capable of existing, then there is potency for being and it might or might not be discovered. If these is not potency for a wapacord to exist then it will never be.

Punctuated evolution? Is that the same thing as Intermittent creation? A creation model fashioned on the pay as you go plan. A few species here, a few species there and a lot of blank rock in between. The development of the earth in fits and starts. God didn't rest on the seventh day; He seems to have rested every other day. I think I'll stick with straight line evolution; that's more consistent with an indefatigable God.

"You're saying that things that have the ability to exist have the ability to exist - a tautology". No, that's not what I'm saying; the tautology is yours. You can keep it. You're welcome to it.

What I said was that things that exist have potency to exist; things that do not exist may or may not have potency to exist. It has nothing to do with ability.

Punctuated evolution? Is that the same thing as Intermittent creation?

things that do not exist may or may not have potency to exist. It has nothing to do with ability.

PvM said:

Punctuated evolution? Is that the same thing as Intermittent creation?

Nope.

PvM said:

Atheists are always asking for proof. Well that is the rational proof and it explains the nature of being. It is at the very least as rational as trying to explain how slimy little creatures crawled on shore in the Devonian era to become tetrapods, or how to explain huge gaps in transitional forms or the huge gaps in geological fossils. You could adopt the Stephen Jay Gould “punctuated evolution” theory. Maybe you think that’s rational.

Punctuated Equilibria is one explanation for the lack of transitional forms at some levels. Note however, that Gould is also on the record that:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”

Gould's position on PunkEek may help understand some of the process which took place in developing the theory, including the fact that errors were made, changes needed to be made. PunkEek is an explanation for the observations as Mayr points out, an explanation with which we can agree or disagree.

Silver Fox said: Punctuated evolution? Is that the same thing as Intermittent creation? A creation model fashioned on the pay as you go plan. A few species here, a few species there and a lot of blank rock in between. The development of the earth in fits and starts. God didn't rest on the seventh day; He seems to have rested every other day. I think I'll stick with straight line evolution; that's more consistent with an indefatigable God.

I'm sure there's a lot to learn in evolutionary biology but I'm also sure that is not going to get me to a creator. It is going to lead to an infinite chain of dependent causation with no independent support. It's also going to lead me to a universe with no apparent purpose of teleology. Neither of those propositions are logically sustainable.

The foundational question is not how something came to be but, rather, why is it at all and why it is what it is. This is the issue of being in and of itself. Science can go from atoms to meons to gleons to string energy and who knows from there. But, barring infinite regression which is logically untenable, the principle of being has to be addressed. And that science does not do.

But, barring infinite regression which is logically untenable, the principle of being has to be addressed.

If we can agree that logic is an essential component for rational thinking, then what you pose is complete gibberish.

"Why should there be a principle of being?" Because being is what we are talking about - where did it originate - what is the source.

"an infinite chain of dependent causation", "Maybe this is the case".

An infinite chain of dependent causation depending on nothing is absurd. A chain of DEPENDENCY depending on nothing. It is either DEPENDENT flowing from an INDEPENDENT INITIAL CAUSE or it is not dependent. If the latter, then evolution is absurd and we can end the discussion.

"All that is needed is a set of initial conditions, maybe boundary conditions and a set of laws".

Where did the initial conditions come from, what set up the boundaries and how did the laws come to be."

Now I elect to call the independent initial cause, the cause of the initial conditions, and the establisher of the boundaries and formulator of the set of laws as God. If that word is unpalatable to you, then you can refer to it in whatever manner you wish.

Silver Fox said: I'm sure there's a lot to learn in evolutionary biology but I'm also sure that is not going to get me to a creator. It is going to lead to an infinite chain of dependent causation with no independent support. It's also going to lead me to a universe with no apparent purpose of teleology. Neither of those propositions are logically sustainable. The foundational question is not how something came to be but, rather, why is it at all and why it is what it is. This is the issue of being in and of itself. Science can go from atoms to meons to gleons to string energy and who knows from there. But, barring infinite regression which is logically untenable, the principle of being has to be addressed. And that science does not do.

Tarnished Fox is a particularly frustrating troll. What happened to Potency??? It may or may not be there, we can't tell, and so it is gibberish. Why do we need to know the creator, when there is no evidence that will define it's characteristics, and natural laws are your only reason for thinking it exists.? Some people think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Praise Be To It's Noodly Apendage) is the creator. All other gods have an equal chance at being the creator, so what??? You calling the inital cause of existance God means nothing, it explains nothing.

"If science were to consider the "principle of being" then it would, by definition, not be science, but rather metaphysics". That's like saying that you have a marvelous seven story building but you can't be bothered building the first floor. So your building is standing in mid-air. Unless science is anchored in sound metaphysics - ontology, what really is out there, epistemology, how we come to know it, then what you have at best is speculative science, at worst, bogus science, guesswork science. You can send men to the moon, plumb the depth of the sea, make cell phones, etc. Unless your science is anchored in sound metaphysics (meta-physica, beyond the physical) then what you're doing is little more than cheap magical tricks.

Do all the experiments you want, study all the evolutionary biology your heart desires; in the end all you have is a sequences of happenings, C follows B, B follows A, etc. There is no purpose to it, there is no meaning to it; it has no teleology because that is not found in evolutionary biology, its found in a sound metaphysics.

Put down the biology book for a moment and take a crack at Aquinas' Summa. It's not an easy read but well worth your time. "you have no characteristics of God". sure we do. They're in the Summa. "What happened to potency". It's in the Summa. "You have no proofs for God". Sure we do, they're in the Summa. Now if you're too lazy or too disinterested in reading it, that's your problem. However, it is highly presumptive to delude yourself into believing that you are dealing with the be all and end all of human knowledge when in fact all you are doing in evolutionary biology is dredging around in the bowels of God's creation.

"Since you insist on posting more of your inane philosophical musings"

If we press on with this line of postings, I will quote you some of Dawkins' musings in The God delusion". Then you will truly know what the word "inane" means. He's a classic example of what happens to a fellow who does not keep up with his philosophy.

Aquinas may have had "proofs" for God, but those have been invalidated and picked apart by later philosophers, and aren't considered convincing arguments or intractable positions. Citing Aquinas' Summa Theologica (at least that's the "Summa" I'm a-Summa-ing you mean) when giving "proofs for God," is an example of what happens to a fellow who does not keep up with his philosophy.

The natural sciences such as biology are empirical in nature and work with a naturalistic methodology. This isn't for reasons of any pre-existing philosophical prejudice, it's just that this is the only way we've been able to make progress with science, a practice adopted because it works whereas others don't. Imagine the mess we'd have if "supernatural" explanations were allowed free reign in science; you might think that a sweater fresh from the drying machine clings to you because the anima within it wants to thank you for drying it with a great big hug. Someone else might insist that it's because of the invisible laundry pixies who want to play pranks on you, and the reason you don't see or feel them is because they can make themselves intangible at will. How would you determine which of these ideas is correct?

"sound metaphysics"????

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Have you been listening to George Carlin??

So please explain specifically what Aquinas' writings have to do with trying to understand biological phenomena, such as the fluctuations of sea otter, sea urchin and bull kelp populations due to the predations of orcas on sea otters due to orcas' preferred food of sea lions being expirated, or please explain how quibbling over the use of "discovery" versus "uncovering" will help scientists better divine the lifestyles of extinct organisms such as the vetulicolians of the early to middle Cambrian.

"How would you determine which of these ideas is correct?"

You would decide it on the most plausible knowledge we have, and would determine it to be static electricity.

No one is advocating giving the supernatural "free reign" in science. Science is fine and has added considerably to the deposit of knowledge. What is not fine is to break science from any sound base in mataphysics and to use science and the products of science to promote and attempt to validate a biased philosophical agenda. That is what atheists are doing with evolutionary biology and that is corrupting the science because it skews the interpretation of the scientific product.

Aquinas' "picked apart" proofs were importantly enough that Dawkins devoted a significant part of his book attempting to, not refute them, but dismiss them. He did the latter. Reading his rendition of the proofs in comparison to what you read in the Summa is what leads to the impression that here is a guy who has not kept up with his philosophy.

Atheists don't want proof for God. Nor do they want to prove there is no God (which they haven't done). They go to the fall back position of "we have reason not to believe". What atheists want is permission to not believe; to overcome that residual internal feeling that not believing may not be right.

So, you have my permission not to believe; that is your right, you are free not to believe. So expiate all those internal demons of resistance and be on your merry way.

Silver Fox said: "If science were to consider the "principle of being" then it would, by definition, not be science, but rather metaphysics". That's like saying that you have a marvelous seven story building but you can't be bothered building the first floor. So your building is standing in mid-air. Unless science is anchored in sound metaphysics - ontology, what really is out there, epistemology, how we come to know it, then what you have at best is speculative science, at worst, bogus science, guesswork science. You can send men to the moon, plumb the depth of the sea, make cell phones, etc. Unless your science is anchored in sound metaphysics (meta-physica, beyond the physical) then what you're doing is little more than cheap magical tricks. Do all the experiments you want, study all the evolutionary biology your heart desires; in the end all you have is a sequences of happenings, C follows B, B follows A, etc. There is no purpose to it, there is no meaning to it; it has no teleology because that is not found in evolutionary biology, its found in a sound metaphysics. Put down the biology book for a moment and take a crack at Aquinas' Summa. It's not an easy read but well worth your time. "you have no characteristics of God". sure we do. They're in the Summa. "What happened to potency". It's in the Summa. "You have no proofs for God". Sure we do, they're in the Summa. Now if you're too lazy or too disinterested in reading it, that's your problem. However, it is highly presumptive to delude yourself into believing that you are dealing with the be all and end all of human knowledge when in fact all you are doing in evolutionary biology is dredging around in the bowels of God's creation. "Since you insist on posting more of your inane philosophical musings" If we press on with this line of postings, I will quote you some of Dawkins' musings in The God delusion". Then you will truly know what the word "inane" means. He's a classic example of what happens to a fellow who does not keep up with his philosophy.

Silver Fish,, er, I mean Silver Fox, your complaint that Science is not validating your particular religious beliefs has been duly noted. Thank you for your support.

Silver Fox said: "an infinite chain of dependent causation", "Maybe this is the case". An infinite chain of dependent causation depending on nothing is absurd.

A chain of DEPENDENCY depending on nothing. It is either DEPENDENT flowing from an INDEPENDENT INITIAL CAUSE or it is not dependent. If the latter, then evolution is absurd and we can end the discussion.

Silver Fox said: "How would you determine which of these ideas is correct?" You would decide it on the most plausible knowledge we have, and would determine it to be static electricity. No one is advocating giving the supernatural "free reign" in science. Science is fine and has added considerably to the deposit of knowledge. What is not fine is to break science from any sound base in mataphysics and to use science and the products of science to promote and attempt to validate a biased philosophical agenda. That is what atheists are doing with evolutionary biology and that is corrupting the science because it skews the interpretation of the scientific product. Aquinas' "picked apart" proofs were importantly enough that Dawkins devoted a significant part of his book attempting to, not refute them, but dismiss them. He did the latter. Reading his rendition of the proofs in comparison to what you read in the Summa is what leads to the impression that here is a guy who has not kept up with his philosophy. Atheists don't want proof for God. Nor do they want to prove there is no God (which they haven't done). They go to the fall back position of "we have reason not to believe". What atheists want is permission to not believe; to overcome that residual internal feeling that not believing may not be right. So, you have my permission not to believe; that is your right, you are free not to believe. So expiate all those internal demons of resistance and be on your merry way.

Silver Fox said: Atheists don't want proof for God. Nor do they want to prove there is no God (which they haven't done). They go to the fall back position of "we have reason not to believe". What atheists want is permission to not believe; to overcome that residual internal feeling that not believing may not be right. So, you have my permission not to believe; that is your right, you are free not to believe. So expiate all those internal demons of resistance and be on your merry way.

Do all the experiments you want, study all the evolutionary biology your heart desires; in the end all you have is a sequences of happenings, C follows B, B follows A, etc. There is no purpose to it, there is no meaning to it; it has no teleology because that is not found in evolutionary biology, its found in a sound metaphysics.

And there are those of us who just don't care, because it doesn't matter in any scientific endeavour, whether there was a First Cause (tm) or not. Carbon-14 has the same half-life either way. Evolution is a fact. Suck it up, princess.

If we can agree that logic is an essential component for rational thinking, then what you pose is complete gibberish. “Why should there be a principle of being?” Because being is what we are talking about - where did it originate - what is the source.

“an infinite chain of dependent causation”, “Maybe this is the case”. An infinite chain of dependent causation depending on nothing is absurd.

A chain of DEPENDENCY depending on nothing. It is either DEPENDENT flowing from an INDEPENDENT INITIAL CAUSE or it is not dependent. If the latter, then evolution is absurd and we can end the discussion.

“All that is needed is a set of initial conditions, maybe boundary conditions and a set of laws”. Where did the initial conditions come from, what set up the boundaries and how did the laws come to be.”

Now I elect to call the independent initial cause, the cause of the initial conditions, and the establisher of the boundaries and formulator of the set of laws as God. If that word is unpalatable to you, then you can refer to it in whatever manner you wish.

No one is advocating giving the supernatural “free reign” in science. Science is fine and has added considerably to the deposit of knowledge. What is not fine is to break science from any sound base in mataphysics and to use science and the products of science to promote and attempt to validate a biased philosophical agenda. That is what atheists are doing with evolutionary biology and that is corrupting the science because it skews the interpretation of the scientific product.

— Silver Fox

"Only delusional twits like yourself...contend there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and science"

There is no conflict between religion and science. Atheists who say that evolutionary biology shows that there is no need for a God. Consequently, there is no God. There is the conflict between science and religion. And what I am saying is that this in effect is using science detached from any metaphysical base to prosecute the biases of the atheistic agenda. There is nothing wrong with evolutionary biology. What is wrong is to take the study of this field of knowledge and interpret it to validate a religious or non-religious (atheism) agenda

I agree wholeheartedly with you that only delusional twits are pointing up the conflict between religion and science. But only the atheists are saying that.

There is no conflict between religion and science. Atheists who say that evolutionary biology shows that there is no need for a God.

— Silver Fox

Consequently, there is no God. There is the conflict between science and religion. And what I am saying is that this in effect is using science detached from any metaphysical base to prosecute the biases of the atheistic agenda.

There is nothing wrong with evolutionary biology. What is wrong is to take the study of this field of knowledge and interpret it to validate a religious or non-religious (atheism) agenda

I agree wholeheartedly with you that only delusional twits are pointing up the conflict between religion and science. But only the atheists are saying that

So let's agree that those who use science to claim that there is a God or that there is no God are both equally mistaken. And let's agree that there are both some atheists as well as some non-atheists who insist on a conflict between science and religion, both based on their philosophical positions.

So what then is your argument?

Silver Fox said: "Only delusional twits like yourself...contend there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and science" There is no conflict between religion and science. Atheists who say that evolutionary biology shows that there is no need for a God. Consequently, there is no God. There is the conflict between science and religion. And what I am saying is that this in effect is using science detached from any metaphysical base to prosecute the biases of the atheistic agenda. There is nothing wrong with evolutionary biology. What is wrong is to take the study of this field of knowledge and interpret it to validate a religious or non-religious (atheism) agenda I agree wholeheartedly with you that only delusional twits are pointing up the conflict between religion and science. But only the atheists are saying that.

Silver Fox said: "How would you determine which of these ideas is correct?" You would decide it on the most plausible knowledge we have, and would determine it to be static electricity. No one is advocating giving the supernatural "free reign" in science. Science is fine and has added considerably to the deposit of knowledge. What is not fine is to break science from any sound base in mataphysics and to use science and the products of science to promote and attempt to validate a biased philosophical agenda. That is what atheists are doing with evolutionary biology and that is corrupting the science because it skews the interpretation of the scientific product. Aquinas' "picked apart" proofs were importantly enough that Dawkins devoted a significant part of his book attempting to, not refute them, but dismiss them. He did the latter. Reading his rendition of the proofs in comparison to what you read in the Summa is what leads to the impression that here is a guy who has not kept up with his philosophy. Atheists don't want proof for God. Nor do they want to prove there is no God (which they haven't done). They go to the fall back position of "we have reason not to believe". What atheists want is permission to not believe; to overcome that residual internal feeling that not believing may not be right. So, you have my permission not to believe; that is your right, you are free not to believe. So expiate all those internal demons of resistance and be on your merry way.

What is not fine is to break science from any sound base in mataphysics

"You haven't specifically mentioned any atheists who use evolutionary biology to promote conflict between religion and science to promote the atheist agenda".

Let's try one close to home. How about P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog). He is livid about religion and how adults corrupt the minds of the young with religious delusions. He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a "cracker", drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you're going to see anywhere.

Silver Fox said: "You haven't specifically mentioned any atheists who use evolutionary biology to promote conflict between religion and science to promote the atheist agenda". Let's try one close to home. How about P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog). He is livid about religion and how adults corrupt the minds of the young with religious delusions. He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a "cracker", drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you're going to see anywhere.

Silver Fox said: "You haven't specifically mentioned any atheists who use evolutionary biology to promote conflict between religion and science to promote the atheist agenda". Let's try one close to home. How about P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog). He is livid about religion and how adults corrupt the minds of the young with religious delusions. He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a "cracker", drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you're going to see anywhere.

Silver Fox said: I'm sure there's a lot to learn in evolutionary biology but I'm also sure that is not going to get me to a creator. It is going to lead to an infinite chain of dependent causation with no independent support. It's also going to lead me to a universe with no apparent purpose of teleology. Neither of those propositions are logically sustainable.

Silver Fox said: He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a "cracker", drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you're going to see anywhere.

No, throwing a stale cracker in the trash is about as sane as you’re going to see anywhere. Worshiping the cracker as a living god…that’s as kooky as you’re going to see anywhere.

In fact, just so you are aware, your thinking isn’t logic or rational. It is blind faith. It’s irrational fantasy. It’s the product of weak and feeble mind

Silver Fox said:

“You haven’t specifically mentioned any atheists who use evolutionary biology to promote conflict between religion and science to promote the atheist agenda”.

Let’s try one close to home. How about P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog). He is livid about religion and how adults corrupt the minds of the young with religious delusions. He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a “cracker”, drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you’re going to see anywhere.

He really does that? Do you have a link or source? Sounds disturbed.

ghost said: Silver Fox said: "Let’s try one close to home. How about P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog). He is livid about religion and how adults corrupt the minds of the young with religious delusions. He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a “cracker”, drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you’re going to see anywhere." He really does that? Do you have a link or source? Sounds disturbed.

Silver Fox said: "Only delusional twits like yourself...contend there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and science" There is no conflict between religion and science. Atheists who say that evolutionary biology shows that there is no need for a God. Consequently, there is no God. There is the conflict between science and religion. And what I am saying is that this in effect is using science detached from any metaphysical base to prosecute the biases of the atheistic agenda. There is nothing wrong with evolutionary biology. What is wrong is to take the study of this field of knowledge and interpret it to validate a religious or non-religious (atheism) agenda I agree wholeheartedly with you that only delusional twits are pointing up the conflict between religion and science. But only the atheists are saying that.

P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog) ... engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a “cracker”, drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you’re going to see anywhere.

ghost said: Silver Fox said: “You haven’t specifically mentioned any atheists who use evolutionary biology to promote conflict between religion and science to promote the atheist agenda”. Let’s try one close to home. How about P.Z. Myers, the evolution biologist from Minnesota (Pharyngula-blog). He is livid about religion and how adults corrupt the minds of the young with religious delusions. He engages in antics like getting someone to bring him a Eucharist Host which he refers to as a “cracker”, drives a rusty nail through it, wrap it in coffee grinds and banana peels and throws it in the garbage. Now that is about as kooky as you’re going to see anywhere. He really does that? Do you have a link or source? Sounds disturbed.

PvM said: Nice way to insulting a large group of people based on their religious beliefs. Some may even think this to be worthy of a term some have abused in describing Warren. Why is it sometimes so hard for some to disagree with others without sounding like a bumbling fool?

H.H. said:

PvM said: Nice way to insulting a large group of people based on their religious beliefs. Some may even think this to be worthy of a term some have abused in describing Warren. Why is it sometimes so hard for some to disagree with others without sounding like a bumbling fool?

PvM, when a person espouses absurd views, it is quite correct to label them absurd, no matter how many foolish people have their feelings bruised. It isn't bigoted to attack unevidenced assertions, no matter how many people might cling to them. When you begin to think it's "bigotry" to point out a cracker isn't magic, you've gone off the deep end. You have become a vacuous mouthpiece for superstition. The only one coming off like a "bumbling fool" is the person who wastes their time trying to gild this religious excrement.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that only delusional twits are pointing up the conflict between religion and science. But only the atheists are saying that.

Now that is about as kooky as you’re going to see anywhere.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
Three persons in one God.

Man, that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them?
That's right Bro.

P.Z.Myers the atheist
P.Z.Myers the evolution biologist
P.Z.Myers the rabid godknocker
Three persons in one kooky guy?

Man that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them?
That's right, Bro.

So, you mean P.Z.Myers the atheist, the evolution biologist and the godknocker are one and the same? Inseparable?
That's right, Bro.

Thar's right, Bro.

Silver Fox said: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Three persons in one God. Man, that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them? That's right Bro. P.Z.Myers the atheist P.Z.Myers the evolution biologist P.Z.Myers the rabid godknocker Three persons in one kooky guy? Man that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them? That's right, Bro. So, you mean P.Z.Myers the atheist, the evolution biologist and the godknocker are one and the same? Inseparable? That's right, Bro. Thar's right, Bro.

Silver Fox said: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Three persons in one God. Man, that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them? That's right Bro. P.Z.Myers the atheist P.Z.Myers the evolution biologist P.Z.Myers the rabid godknocker Three persons in one kooky guy? Man that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them? That's right, Bro. So, you mean P.Z.Myers the atheist, the evolution biologist and the godknocker are one and the same? Inseparable? That's right, Bro. Thar's right, Bro.

PvM said: Seems SF has accepted that he is lost for an argument of logic and reason. So much for his love affair with philosophy.

Silver Fox said: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit Three persons in one God. Man, that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them? That's right Bro. P.Z.Myers the atheist P.Z.Myers the evolution biologist P.Z.Myers the rabid godknocker Three persons in one kooky guy? Man that sounds strange. You mean you can't separate them? That's right, Bro. So, you mean P.Z.Myers the atheist, the evolution biologist and the godknocker are one and the same? Inseparable? That's right, Bro. Thar's right, Bro.

"What sound basis of metaphysics?" "
"Science consists of findings consistent patterns in nature."

What is the purpose or teleology of that nature that you are finding consistent patterns in. Is there no purpose? No meaning to nature itself? Is it just there? Now that's real magic. We have a beautiful seven story building (science) but no first floor (purpose of nature). What exactly is it out there (ontology) Why is it there (epistemology) How are we suppose to act towards it - other than look for patterns (ethics)

Do you see the metaphysics? As I said before, without the metaphysics, without a knowledge of purpose or meaning, all science is doing is developing cheap magic tricks. So, if you're telling me that metaphysics is not part of the Philosophy of Science, then all you're doing is slight-of-hand tricks.

Let's try to dispel some of the assumptions.

In the last few postings I have been referred to as a "Protestant Kook" and a member of DI. Let me assure you that I am neither.

It always amazes me how, when P.Z. is critiqued, the minions come out of the woodwork ranting and raving. They're like grunions headed to the sea, like rats led by the Pied Piper.
The mantra is "defend P.Z.at all cost" even if it makes you look stupid, like rationalizing his "cracker" stupidity.

For a change why don't you try to formulate a few thoughts of your own and stop letting P.Z. do all your thinking for you.

"What is the purpose or teleology of that nature that you are finding consistent patterns in. Is there no purpose? No meaning to nature itself? Is it just there?"

Well, Silver Fish,, Er,,Silver Fox, if you are not a Protestant Kook, then what are you? By the way you bash atheists I can tell you are religious, and the majority of religious people in this country are Protestant. You come to a science blog to claim all evolutionary biologists are atheist, when that is obviously not the case, that makes you a kook. So tell us about yourself, why are you not a Protestant Kook???

I wish to apologize for writing 'silver fish' and 'kook'. I have been working since Christmas Eve and need a day off. I'll feel better tomorrow.

"Wow, talking about missing the point"

The point is: "Methodological Naturalism", not rooted in a sound metaphysics, tells us nothing except that C follows B and B follows A. And from there we can wallow in an infinite regression which is totally senseless because it has no independent point of reference. Now we have been over this time and time again. So you're either in denial or too stupid to understand. I opt for the former.

Silver Fox said: It always amazes me how, when P.Z. is critiqued, the minions come out of the woodwork ranting and raving. They're like grunions headed to the sea, like rats led by the Pied Piper. The mantra is "defend P.Z.at all cost" even if it makes you look stupid, like rationalizing his "cracker" stupidity. For a change why don't you try to formulate a few thoughts of your own and stop letting P.Z. do all your thinking for you.

Silver Fox said: It always amazes me how, when P.Z. is critiqued, the minions come out of the woodwork ranting and raving. They're like grunions headed to the sea, like rats led by the Pied Piper. The mantra is "defend P.Z.at all cost" even if it makes you look stupid, like rationalizing his "cracker" stupidity. For a change why don't you try to formulate a few thoughts of your own and stop letting P.Z. do all your thinking for you.

'You come to a science blog and claim that ALL evolutionary biologist are atheists."

I have no argument with evolution biologists, evolutionary biology, or with atheists and have never claimed that ALL evolutionary biologists are atheists. There are many evolutionary biologist who are atheists. I suspect most of them know how to separate their science from their religion or lack thereof (atheism). However, some atheists do not respect boundaries; they use the findings of their discipline, evolutionary biology, to validate or justify their religious beliefs, social beliefs, value beliefs, or whatever you want to call atheism. They are using the findings of a legitimate science for a purpose for which it is not intended. This is a contamination of science because it skews the interpretations of evolutionary biology products towards supporting an atheist agenda.

If you are an atheist - fine, who cares. What I do care about is that science be allowed to stand alone. If atheists are uncomfortable with their commitment to atheism - fine -handle it, but do not handle it by appropriating the findings of science to buttress your failing belief system.

but do not handle it by appropriating the findings of science to buttress your failing belief system.

"Catholics place greater value on a wafer than they do on the lives and livelihoods of people...an example of evolutionary biology formenting strife between science and religion."

Desecrating the Eucharist has little or nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se'. That's buffoonery. When as an evolutionary biologist relying on the products of evolutionary biology he concludes that there is no God and go on to attacks parents who teach their children religion, or as he sees it, corrupts the minds of the little ones with religious delusions, and suggests society should have an interest in protecting against that. THAT IS FORMENTING STRIFE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION.

P.Z. is concerned about the value Catholics place on lives and livelihoods of others? So, he desecrates a wafer. If you know anything about logic, what you have there is a NON SEQUITUR.

And yes, you are part of a horde of squirming vermin.

Silver Fox said: "Catholics place greater value on a wafer than they do on the lives and livelihoods of people...an example of evolutionary biology formenting strife between science and religion." Desecrating the Eucharist has little or nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se'. That's buffoonery. When as an evolutionary biologist relying on the products of evolutionary biology he concludes that there is no God and go on to attacks parents who teach their children religion, or as he sees it, corrupts the minds of the little ones with religious delusions, and suggests society should have an interest in protecting against that. THAT IS FORMENTING STRIFE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. P.Z. is concerned about the value Catholics place on lives and livelihoods of others? So, he desecrates a wafer. If you know anything about logic, what you have there is a NON SEQUITUR. And yes, you are part of a horde of squirming vermin.

Also, you never did give a specific example of any atheist using evolutionary biology to promote an "atheism agenda," either.

So, if you never intended to produce an example thereof, why did you insist on mentioning it?

This is a contamination of science because it skews the interpretations of evolutionary biology products towards supporting an atheist agenda.

Perhaps I am in denial, and perhaps I am also stupid, but that there may be nothing except that C follows B follows A does not seem to me to be logically inconsistent. There may be no independent point of reference, no fixed locus - I seem to recall that relativity says something like that.

We had some two and a half millennia of metaphysics, if one starts it at around, say, Plato, and about four centuries of science, if one starts it at around, say, Bacon or Galileo. During those periods, the actual achievements of metaphysics have been clouds of words. No progress worth speaking of has been made by philosophers and religionists towards understanding the nature of reality, or the relationship of mind to matter, or providing a purpose to existence. What progress there has been towards these questions has come exclusively from investigation of the physical structures of the nervous system and the brain. It has come from science.

But science hasn't stopped there. It has proceeded to unravel the nature of the Universe, and its progress has been astonishing. Sticking to investigation of the material has yielded results so bountiful and so profound as to cause one to suspect that the metaphysicians have been barking up entirely the wrong tree for millennia now. They have found nothing. Whatever they thought was there appears not to want to be found, if it's there at all.

Perhaps we should stick to doing what produces results.

I regret to say that P Z Myers is wrong, and here I speak as a humanist agnostic. I have no quarrel with his atheism. It's his political nous that I find deficient.

He can argue all he likes that a communion wafer is just a sort of cracker. What he can't do is argue that it therefore doesn't have significance, because that doesn't follow. For a clear majority of Americans, a communion wafer has significance. That's true even for Protestants, even for way-out-there evangelicals who regard the Church of Rome as a heresy and a tool of Satan. And what is that significance?

Fine distinctions won't fly, here. Contempt towards so universal a symbol of Christianity is contempt for Christianity itself. In fact, I don't think PZ feels anything else, and I think that's what he meant to express. But what he persistently doesn't get is that to a clear majority of Americans, there is no distinction between something that they think is a very part of them, and they themselves. By making a gesture of contempt towards their faith, P Z Myers has signified his contempt of their very selves. He may not mean that, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't get to pick and choose what a symbol means. A message means what it means to the receiver, not to the sender.

He's entitled to send any message he wants, of course. Nobody is disputing his rights. What I'm disputing is his common sense.

For is it not brutally plain to everyone here that the would-be American ayatollahs, the real theocrats, are delighted by this affair? Surely it is obvious that it helps them? They want to persuade the American public of huge lies - that science means the negation of God, and that egghead academic scientists have nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans. P Z Myers has handed them a coup, something they can use in talking points for years to come.

It appears Professor Myers believes that the true fight is against all religion. I can only plead with him and his supporters to show a sense of proportion. It is plainly as much as anyone can do to keep the frothing lunatics on the fundamentalist fringe from injecting their poisons into the public school science classroom. P Z Myers is refusing to throw a line to someone being pursued by alligators on the grounds that the true solution to the problem is to drain the swamp, and tootling loudly on an alligator call instead.

I know his heart is in the right place. I know his motives are pure and his learning immense. I respect his fearlessness. But I still say that one who will not help you is not your friend, and still less is one who helps your enemies.

Dave Luckett said: But what he persistently doesn't get is that to a clear majority of Americans, there is no distinction between something that they think is a very part of them, and they themselves.

HH, you point out the vitally important distinction between what should be, and what is. It is a consideration, to be sure. But for my part, I hope that we are concerned principally with what is.

Dave Luckett, and I hope that we are concerned principally with what is known, and not stop the concern at what people say.

Silver Fox said: "Wow, talking about missing the point" The point is: "Methodological Naturalism", not rooted in a sound metaphysics, tells us nothing except that C follows B and B follows A.

ghost you can't be serious. are you new around here?

silver fox cannot distinguish between apparent teleology and his magick teleology that is as essential to being as a host of other words that have no grounding in reality.

water is wet because it is supposed to be as part of its principle of being or whatever nonsense he said. fish breathe oxygen in water. therefore fish are supposed to live in water. QED for everything else.

silverfox why don't you tell us more about PZ? Doesn't he just really really get your goat?

Silver Fox said: "What sound basis of metaphysics?" " "Science consists of findings consistent patterns in nature." What is the purpose or teleology of that nature that you are finding consistent patterns in. Is there no purpose? No meaning to nature itself? Is it just there? Now that's real magic. We have a beautiful seven story building (science) but no first floor (purpose of nature). What exactly is it out there (ontology) Why is it there (epistemology) How are we suppose to act towards it - other than look for patterns (ethics)

Do you see the metaphysics? As I said before, without the metaphysics, without a knowledge of purpose or meaning, all science is doing is developing cheap magic tricks. So, if you're telling me that metaphysics is not part of the Philosophy of Science, then all you're doing is slight-of-hand tricks.

ghost said: Did PZ really do that? Is there a link or a news story. I cannot believe a college professor would do something like that. This has to be a hoax.

ghost asked (again!): Did PZ really do that? Is there a link or a news story. I cannot believe a college professor would do something like that. This has to be a hoax.

Paul Burnett said: The actual hoax, of course, is that many millions of people have actually been programmed to believe that a cracker can be magically transformed into the flesh of a human (who was also a god), which they then eat in an act of ritual cannibalism. PZ was simply pointing out the absurdity of this hoax. Unfortunately, the gullible were outraged that he did so.

Silver Fox said: What is the purpose or teleology of that nature that you are finding consistent patterns in. Is there no purpose? No meaning to nature itself? Is it just there? Now that's real magic.

Why is it there (epistemology)

without the metaphysics, without a knowledge of purpose or meaning, all science is doing is developing cheap magic tricks.

Purpose is a human construct projected onto any perceived function. The question of WHY something should work as it does is objectively meaningless because it assumes a nonexistent motivation for functions, which implies some agency possessing that motivation. So deities emerge from seeing something happen, presuming it happens for a reason, intuiting a motivation for whatever makes it happen, and then concocting an agency with motives. I speculate that people evolved the necessary viewpoint of attributing motivation because we are a gregarious species, making it essential for us to understand the thought processes going on in one another's minds. Easy to transfer this to natural processes.

The atheism business seems an outgrowth of our inability to see any neutral. If the gods exist, one can either recognize or deny them, either of which is necessarily a posture towards the gods. If evolutionary biology does not ratify the gods, it THEREFORE must deny them. And this mutually exhaustive dichotomy is logically required IF and ONLY IF one assumes the gods exist. Neutrality is only possible if one can conceptualize a reality without any gods. But that's hard, because if there are no gods we can't determine the motivation behind obvious functionality in nature. We're reduced to "that's the way it is", and this is fundamentally unsatisfying.

Flint said: Purpose is a human construct projected onto any perceived function. The question of WHY something should work as it does is objectively meaningless because it assumes a nonexistent motivation for functions, which implies some agency possessing that motivation.

Silver Fox said: "Catholics place greater value on a wafer than they do on the lives and livelihoods of people...an example of evolutionary biology formenting strife between science and religion." Desecrating the Eucharist has little or nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se'. That's buffoonery. When as an evolutionary biologist relying on the products of evolutionary biology he concludes that there is no God and go on to attacks parents who teach their children religion, or as he sees it, corrupts the minds of the little ones with religious delusions, and suggests society should have an interest in protecting against that. THAT IS FORMENTING STRIFE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. P.Z. is concerned about the value Catholics place on lives and livelihoods of others? So, he desecrates a wafer. If you know anything about logic, what you have there is a NON SEQUITUR. And yes, you are part of a horde of squirming vermin.

There is certainly a purpose in the cheetah’s decision to hunt

Rilke's granddaughter said: You were specifically asked (because you brought it up) of an atheist using evolutionary biology to foment strife. You failed. You failed to acknowledge your failure. You attempted to ignore your failure. If you can't manage to construct either a logical argument, or provide examples to support your illogical arguments, why bother to engage you at all? Try not to be so childish; argue like an adult.

Silver Fox said: "Catholics place greater value on a wafer than they do on the lives and livelihoods of people...an example of evolutionary biology formenting strife between science and religion." Desecrating the Eucharist has little or nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se'. That's buffoonery. When as an evolutionary biologist relying on the products of evolutionary biology he concludes that there is no God and go on to attacks parents who teach their children religion, or as he sees it, corrupts the minds of the little ones with religious delusions, and suggests society should have an interest in protecting against that. THAT IS FORMENTING STRIFE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. P.Z. is concerned about the value Catholics place on lives and livelihoods of others? So, he desecrates a wafer. If you know anything about logic, what you have there is a NON SEQUITUR. And yes, you are part of a horde of squirming vermin.

Paul Burnett said:

ghost asked (again!): Did PZ really do that? Is there a link or a news story. I cannot believe a college professor would do something like that. This has to be a hoax.

Yes, he did it - the story of his doing it is not a hoax. I replied to your previous similar question on December 28, 2008, at 11:05 AM. See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php and subsequent threads for the entire story. The actual hoax, of course, is that many millions of people have actually been programmed to believe that a cracker can be magically transformed into the flesh of a human (who was also a god), which they then eat in an act of ritual cannibalism. PZ was simply pointing out the absurdity of this hoax. Unfortunately, the gullible were outraged that he did so.

gee said:

Paul Burnett said:

ghost asked (again!): Did PZ really do that? Is there a link or a news story. I cannot believe a college professor would do something like that. This has to be a hoax.

Yes, he did it - the story of his doing it is not a hoax. I replied to your previous similar question on December 28, 2008, at 11:05 AM. See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php and subsequent threads for the entire story. The actual hoax, of course, is that many millions of people have actually been programmed to believe that a cracker can be magically transformed into the flesh of a human (who was also a god), which they then eat in an act of ritual cannibalism. PZ was simply pointing out the absurdity of this hoax. Unfortunately, the gullible were outraged that he did so.

It does not say there that he did that.

Silver Fox said: It always amazes me how, when P.Z. is critiqued, the minions come out of the woodwork ranting and raving. They're like grunions headed to the sea, like rats led by the Pied Piper. The mantra is "defend P.Z.at all cost" even if it makes you look stupid, like rationalizing his "cracker" stupidity. For a change why don't you try to formulate a few thoughts of your own and stop letting P.Z. do all your thinking for you.

SF: However, some atheists do not respect boundaries; they use the findings of their discipline, evolutionary biology, to validate or justify their religious beliefs, social beliefs, value beliefs, or whatever you want to call atheism

PvM said:

SF: However, some atheists do not respect boundaries; they use the findings of their discipline, evolutionary biology, to validate or justify their religious beliefs, social beliefs, value beliefs, or whatever you want to call atheism

In that aspect they are not much different from some Christians who abuse science to further their own religious beliefs. So what...

PvM said:

SF: However, some atheists do not respect boundaries; they use the findings of their discipline, evolutionary biology, to validate or justify their religious beliefs, social beliefs, value beliefs, or whatever you want to call atheism

In that aspect they are not much different from some Christians who abuse science to further their own religious beliefs. So what...

John Kwok said: Dear PvM, Judging from Silver Fox's increasingly inane remarks, it seems as though he is more concerned with "abuse" from "atheist evolutionists" than he is with "some Christians" who are quite willing to prostitute themselves on behalf of their favorite mendacious intellectual pornography, whether it is Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, or some other peculiar brand of "Scientific Creationism":

And from there we can wallow in an infinite regression which is totally senseless because it has no independent point of reference.

You failed. You failed to acknowledge your failure. You attempted to ignore your failure.

Stanton said: Indeed, nevermind that the "abusive atheist evolutionists" have not done any damage or lasting harm comparable to the pernicious, utterly destructive influence Christian fundamentalists, especially those who espouse Creationism, produce. The sort of damage these people produce surpass the mischief committed by "abusive atheist evolutionists" by several dozen orders of magnitude.

PvM said: I understand that atheists may see it that way and yet similarly Christians may see just the opposite. These kinds of claims are just utterly nonsense and non productive.

Silver Fox said: "Catholics place greater value on a wafer than they do on the lives and livelihoods of people...an example of evolutionary biology formenting strife between science and religion." Desecrating the Eucharist has little or nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se'. That's buffoonery. When as an evolutionary biologist relying on the products of evolutionary biology he concludes that there is no God and go on to attacks parents who teach their children religion, or as he sees it, corrupts the minds of the little ones with religious delusions, and suggests society should have an interest in protecting against that. THAT IS FORMENTING STRIFE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. P.Z. is concerned about the value Catholics place on lives and livelihoods of others? So, he desecrates a wafer. If you know anything about logic, what you have there is a NON SEQUITUR. And yes, you are part of a horde of squirming vermin.

ben said: What is it about creo trolls that makes them incapable of using the blockquote tag?

Flint said: So deities emerge from seeing something happen, presuming it happens for a reason, intuiting a motivation for whatever makes it happen, and then concocting an agency with motives. I speculate that people evolved the necessary viewpoint of attributing motivation because we are a gregarious species, making it essential for us to understand the thought processes going on in one another's minds. Easy to transfer this to natural processes.

Hard wired for pattern recognition

Silver Fox said: Hard wired for pattern recognition

It is admittedly difficult to follow SF's more gnomic pronouncements, since they often appear almost content-free, but I believe he might be trying to suggest, from the choice of words ("hard wired"), that Sylvilagus was implying that someone must have hard wired us. This, of course, does not follow, but it's the sort of "insight" that would happily occupy SF for many an hour.

Silver Fox said: Hard wired for pattern recognition

Rilke's granddaughter said:

Silver Fox said: Hard wired for pattern recognition

What I enjoy most about creationists is that when faced with questions they can't answer - like pretty much all the ones addressed to SF in this thread, including EVIDENCE and EXAMPLES for the various bogus claims he/she has made - they resort to meaningless non-sequiturs or garbage inferences. The point this demonstrates most clearly is the intellectually vacuous and fundamentally cowardly nature of creationists. They run away from actual discussion of issues. Highly entertainin'