Re: Common evolutionist myths

<stevedholl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 21, 2:41 am, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:43 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

True, but since Dover the ID backers haven't tried quite so hard to
hide their religious background. Not that they were every particularly
good at it-- after all, even a conservative Christian judge didn't buy
the "ID is not religiously motivated, honest it isn't!" line.

Depends who motivates it. I use ID ideas to motivate for YEC with an
openly religious bias. Some ID'sts have no idea in
just how much trouble they are for denying the name of Jesus when
explicitly asked a straight forward question - much the vexation of
atheists and openly YEC.

ID was a term used by Darwin - "ID" and what it "means" depends
entirely on the person using the phrase and his pragmatics with it. If
"ID is not religiously motivated" then this is according to an
individual - we must be told who is this individual and what is his
agenda, world view and intent with ID. What does this individual
believe about language itself and consciousness for example. Your
secret beliefs or unknown ideas like for example Gould's belief that
his mind consisted of illusions would put everything a person says in
its proper perspective.

Mind quoting Darwin's use of the term ID for me? I've never heard
anyone make that claim before and I'd love to read the passage
myself. What context did Darwin use it in?

thanks a bunch
stve

Autobiography, p 87:

"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God
until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague
conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in
nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive,
fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can
no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve
shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a
door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of
organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the
course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed
laws."

Nearest I can find on the Complete Works site.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
    ... anybody seen a comparison in nature like Hershey has? ... If we allow natural selection as some kind of basic law of nature, ... giving us a unity in understanding of nature in regards to reproduction ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
    ... If we allow natural selection as some kind of basic law of nature, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... It tries to determine the law that nature operates by, ... The only rules in physics are the methodologies by which those laws ... It is NOT a good practice to do this in science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Removing Lewontins Fallacy From Hamiltons Rule
    ... >>> required to break Hamilton's fitness tautology. ... verified or refuted within nature. ... gene centric argument that "genes use organisms to replicate genes" which is ... >> Also, natural selection does not care about causation, only ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Einsteins Second Postulate Violates His First.
    ... rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge ... laws of physics are law of nature. ... "By making the key discoveries of their era, uneducated technicians like Michael Faraday and James Watt threatened the scholastic myth, that all progress, including scientific progress, needs must use the rigour and discipline controlled by academics in places like Cambridge University. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading