Re: In the News: US study pours cold water on Darwin's theory


Frank J wrote:
explainer wrote:
Frank J wrote:
explainer wrote:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
It is also worth noting that Darwin himself only proposed such a scenario in
a private letter, and not in print, so describing it as a "theory" or
"Darwin's theory" is a bit extreme--it was a bit of speculation on his part,
and Deamer's experiment was probably not a duplication of exactly what
Darwin had in mind.

Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT a theory of how life originated in
the first place. It never was. His theory is about how existing life is
modified over time.
Such a simple point, a fact, so often missed, especially by the
creationists. If they could come to grips with this their problem
changes to one of...

This point is *missed* by the public (creationist or otherwise), and
sadly too often by the critic of ID/creationism. But it is deliberately
*avoided* by the professional anti-evolutionists. It is our obligation
to set the record straight. So we need to ask these questions:
It is not missed by a small group I hang with, The Westar Institute,
which is on the throes of becoming a more vivid voice in the essentials
of Christian living in the 21st century.

Another point easily missed is that we learn and evolve as thinking
individuals one experience at a time, from the presently "known" to the
next known.

Our opportunity is not with the rigid fanatics, but with the thinking
uncertain. It is easy to chastise the fanatic, quite another thing to
encourage the inquirer to think things through.


Certainly. I think that at least 1/2 of the ~50% that think that
"humans were created in their present form in the last 10000 years" can
easily change their mind - not about *that* humans were created, but
that the *how* is via evolution from other species and that lineages go
back almost 4 billion years. OTOH, the snake oil salesmen will never
admit that they are spinning nonsense...

Oh, so true. Please visit the Flat Earth Society website at
http://www.flat-earth.org/ for an example of "hanging on to the bitter
truth (is this the end)?"

...Part of "encouraging the
inquirer to think things through" though, must be to gently make them
aware that they are being sold snake oil, and from those who probably
don't even "buy" it themselves. And yes, I'm quite aware that, however
gently this is done, it can, and often will, backfire.
I am of the opinion there is a continum of thinking within the human
species ranging from everpresent rational thinking (the inquirer who is
certain in what they know and certain in pursuing the unknown even if
it means disproving what is presently known) at one end to absolute
non-thinking (the fanatic who is certain in what they believe and
unmoved by any evidence) at the other with uncertainty (the uneasy
bewildered who want to know with certainty, but are swayed by others,
often folks from either end).

Each of us spends time across the spectrum. Rational in some things,
fanatical in other and bewildered by some.

It's a question of how we treat ourselves and others. This might be a
good place to remember the golden rule, so called, which seems to be
present in every religious and ethical code I know. "Treat others the
way you want to be treated."

As to it's backfiring. That comes with the turf.



"Did the creator create every species from scratch, one particle at a
time or did the creator use previously created life to form the next
species?"

But they don't. Why? Could it be that the pursuit of this question
would be divisive?

Yes, so let's divide and conquer.
Yes and explain and encourage reflection as well.

Although they seem to have dismissed the breach
caused by young earth versus old earth as misunderstanding, the
acceptance of some of evolution by the IDers is causing palace unrest
by some YECs like Ken Ham.

Yes, so instead of lumping tham all together and labeling them
"creationisnts" we should be exploiting their differences. In
*stratgies* that is.

Whatever they believe in private, the professionals have radically
different ideas of what the *audience* needs to believe in order to be
"saved". YEC organizations are afraid that if their audience doesn't
buy the whole package they would reject it all in favor of evolution.
OEC organizations are more confident that their audience can reject
evolution without having to buy nonsensical ages. But ID organizations
have realized that rejecting a caricature of evolution is all it takes
to promote YEC and OEC - without having to draw attention to the
differences and fatal flaws in both.

I am convinced still--all the "evidence" to the contrary from the "true
believers"--that the truth will out.

I read a tidy quote in an article by Roy Hoover of the Westar Institute
as to how the fundamentalist creationists who have embraced the Left
Behind novels don't realize that by rejecting 21st century knowledge
they are staying behind.


I doubt the creationist hard line could withstand an honest inquiry
into this question. It has become a fragile coalition of the
unthinking.


Not sure what you mean by "creationist hard line"...

...Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, the YECs mainly...

But what about the IDers? They know that YEC is nonsense, and prefer to
cover up its flaws instead of advertise them. And with that they seem
to be taking the lead in the anti-evolution movement, at least in the
media, if not in small town churches. While the rank and file evolution
deniers, whether they follow YEC, ID, etc. seem to be mostly unaware of
it, YEC leaders, especially AIG, are not happy with the ID approach.
Compared to ID, AIG is doing us a favor by trying to undo the big tent.
Yep. Did your Mother ever ask you what you had been doing and you
wanted to lie about it? How did you feel? I sense this is becoming an
issue, a coming rift, in the YEC/OEC differentiation as the IDers come
to accept evolution more they distance themselves from the YECs, evern
some of the OECs who are literalists, but read "six days of creation"
as six stages lasting millions of years each.

We shall see. All the best and as my Mother always said, "Now Gordon,
I want the truth."

GH


..., but we have been
giving the professional anti-evolutionists a free ride for far too
long. Their spin machine is virtually endless, so they'll never go
away. But right now they have an effective audience of ~60-70% (based
on those sympathetic to "teaching the controversy" even if they accept
evolution). If we put our energies in the right place, there's no
reason that it can't be reduced to the ~20% of committed scriptural
literalists.

If anyone think's I'm dreaming, consider this: One group that does
*not* support the professional anti-evolutionists is the leaders of
most major religions (including most of Christianity). And yet that
"minor fact" is just as much a secret among the public that abiogenesis
is not the same as "Darwin's theory."
Here is the opportunity. The conflict between theists and atheists is
a false war created and sustained by people who say "This I believe
and... anyone who believes otherwise is sunk." When we are able to say
the first part and dismiss the second as playing creator, things are
fine."

Atheist, theist, agnnostic? What does it matter if one's behavior is
just?

GH



All the best, Gordon Hill

The key phrase to Darwin's theory is "descent with modification". Darwin
assumed there was life to begin with. He theorized about how it changes
over time.

Bob Kolker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In the News: US study pours cold water on Darwins theory
    ... that the *how* is via evolution from other species and that lineages go ... YEC organizations are afraid that if their audience doesn't ... as to how the fundamentalist creationists who have embraced the Left ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: US study pours cold water on Darwins theory
    ... *avoided* by the professional anti-evolutionists. ... acceptance of some of evolution by the IDers is causing palace unrest ... YEC organizations are afraid that if their audience doesn't ... as to how the fundamentalist creationists who have embraced the Left ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: US study pours cold water on Darwins theory
    ... that the *how* is via evolution from other species and that lineages go ... If YEC groups do not believe their origins account,... ... A bell that IDers are desperately trying to silence. ... as to how the fundamentalist creationists who have embraced the Left ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Answering a creationist.
    ... evolution, this has been answered by a physicist who uses the ... There are also OECs and IDers. ... Creationists and IDers who like to debate "evolutionists" are not ... not easy to do so if the audience wants him to be right, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: US study pours cold water on Darwins theory
    ... that the *how* is via evolution from other species and that lineages go ... if not most YEC groups, actually and honestly believe what they say. ... A bell that IDers are desperately trying to silence. ... as to how the fundamentalist creationists who have embraced the Left ...
    (talk.origins)