Re: Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis

On Dec 1, 3:01 am, Bloopenblop...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:55 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Nov 30, 4:31 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Nov 30, 11:05 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

[ginormous snip]

Surely you're not a creationist pretending to be an "evolutionist"?

No, I don't think he is.

Wouldn't that be a little dishonest?

I think he's really concerned about this.

RF

Chris

If there is any deliberate and systematic dishonesty on any scientific
web site, I most certainly *do* share any concern he and others may
have. However, the first of these examples is a simple error or
attribution, and makes no difference to the gist of the argument, and
the second doesn't hold any water when you look at it in any detail.

Mind you, I wonder why no creationist has tried to form an argument
against the numerous instances of creationist misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehoods identified in the talk-origins
archive. It seems that the sternest criticism of this resource comes
from the "evolutionist" side of the argument.

RF

First, I am sorry that I incorrectly referred to you as a doctor. You
do come off as very well educated, if I may say so myself.

I must apologize for jumping to hasty conclusions about you. I seem to
have developed a habit of this over the past few days, and I need to
think more carefully before posting.


Second, I am not a creationist. Nor can I understand why you think a
creationist would try to pose as an "evolutionist" (to use the
creationists' term) on the TO newsgroup. Some proponents of the
mainstream viewpoint on Wikipedia suspect that some of the editors who
drop by the evolution article are part of some sort of creationist
campaign to subvert the wiki, but a *newsgroup?* Even less can I
understand why you could think so despite the fact that I wrote two
detailed posts earlier in this thread which were inconsistent with
common creationist thinking.

You are quite right. I'm sorry for jumping to hasty conclusions.
I recall some creationists posting here in the pretence that they are
"evolutionists", but evidently you are not one of them.


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3aed95211190d0d0http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/25b9d84b54f72526

I would even further point out that in the first point I had agreed
with one of Evopeach's points and then retracted this agreement after
considering criticisms. Basically, I must be the friendliest
undercover creationist you will meet. Nor would I describe myself as
an "evolutionist." I said that I would prefer to accept evolution.
That was meant as a description of my bias, and if my lifestyle
motivated me to favor YECism, then I would be biased in that
direction, too.

Third, I never disputed that creationists use an argument against
evolution from thermodynamics. I was growing deeply skeptical of how
evolution people characterize this argument. I suspect that most
people arguing for evolution don't have a good grasp of what the
creationists are saying and have said. You are helping to confirm this
perception of mine right now.

Fourth, the idea that AiG has stuck the thermodynamics argument on
their "do not use" list is some kind of bizarre myth that has spread
through pro-evolution circles. It is demonstrably false as AiG
maintains FAQs trying to show you that evolution is contradicted by
the second law.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/thermodynamics.asp

Note that Dr. Carl Wieland's essay explicitly acknowledges that order
can increase in an open system.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i2/thermodynamics.asp

The idea that they stuck it on their "don't-use" list seems to stem
from a section which concedes that it is probably not correct to say
that the second law took effect with the fall of man in the garden of
eden. As late as Scientific Creationism in 1974, Morris was saying
that the 2nd law must have been part of the curse that God put on
mankind. But the second law has some beneficial aspects so it can't be
the curse, as such. This does not amount to a concession that there is
no valid argument against evolution from thermodynamics. See:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp("Question 3")

Finally, it is admitted that the examples I gave are not strong ones.
The first may be (I don't know) a simple mistake. The second is not
strong, but not for the reasons you gave. It may be that evolutionists
misconstrue creationists' argument, but from reading and skimming many
creationist texts I get the distinct impression that (a) their views
have shifted somewhat with time, so you can't be too hard on critics
for having the wrong idea, (b) the creationists introduce concepts
that are simply foreign to how thermodynamics is treated in situations
unrelated to evolution. E.g., "organized complexity," "power
converter," (which suspiciously evolved into an "energy conversion
mechanism" in later tracts), "information to direct growth," etc. None
of these things are completely made up but as far as I have been able
to ascertain they are simply not part of the science of
thermodynamics. Regardless of how sloppily evolution people have
addressed the creationists' thermodynamics assertions, how could a
rational person smell that much smoke and not suspect there's a fire?

I will see if I can find some better examples of my "concerns" (as I
have put it) tommorow.

Thank you.

I'll look forward to it.

RF

.