Re: What's with the personal attacks on Darwin?

On May 6, 10:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 6, 6:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 6, 5:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 12:03 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 1:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 8:55 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SNIP...

Evolution says
intelligence is not seen in nature.

Correct.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/253d2b9cf9bf9947

"If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
ntelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID."

Steven J, in response, writes:

"Evolutionary biology, like the rest of science, rejects 'god of the
gaps' arguments from personal incredulity and appeals to magic.
Evolutionary biology is compatible with intelligent design, if you
can
provide some evidence for the alleged designer and give some idea of
his abilities, constraints, purposes, and/or design philosophy. ID
'theory' has none of that."

Bob: why don't you ask Steven to post, lets say, just two evolutionary
scholars who have said "Evolutionary biology is compatible with
intelligent design"?

Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, Th. Dobzhansky, Teilhard
Chardain among the Christians (Catholic, Evangelical, Catholic,
Orthodox, Catholic, in that order). All think/thought that God worked
through natural mechanisms that humans could parse out. And that is
just off the top of my head. And only names that you might
recognize. Most scientists, of course, don't actually say what their
religious belief are because, when they are doing science, it doesn't
matter. Science, after all, is not theology.

If true this should be no problem - right?

How about 5 or 10 evolution authors or scholars?

See above for 5.

Richard Colling. He’s a professor at Olivet Nazarene University.

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/olivet3.html

Alex Bolyanatz, an assistant professor of anthropology at Wheaton
College, in Illinois.
Howard J. Van Till, a now-retired physics professor at Calvin College,
had an even more grueling experience when he published The Fourth Day:
What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation
(Eerdmans, 1986).

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37a01201.htm

--David L Wilcox, Ph.D. in Population Genetics, prof. at Eastern
College, author of God and Evolution (2004), and contributor to
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2003).

Then there are *all* the authors in the following book.

Keith B. Miller, editor; Perspectives on an Evolving Creation 2003
Eerdmans. A strong Christian case for evolutionary theory According
to the authors of this book, who explore evolutionary theory from a
clear Christian perspective, the common view of conflict between
evolutionary theory and Christian faith is mistaken. Written by
contributors representing the natural sciences, philosophy, theology,
and the history of science, this thought-provoking work is informed
by both solid scientific knowledge and keen theological insight.

I will accept even one.

See above.

Bob: how do you explain Steven's comment?

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have miunderstood Howard. I asked for quotes saying that evolution
and ID are compatible, not a list of persons who hold to a deistic
biological First Cause.

Oh. Since Michael Behe finds common descent (the entire branching
process) to be quite compatible with his particular and peculiar view
of Intelligent Design, only thinking that some unspecified,
undetectable something (but an intelligent something) did something by
some unknown and unspecified process (magical poofing at the gene
level?) occasionally during this long evolutionary branching, I think
I can include him as someone who thinks ID and evolution are quite
compatible in every example where we have enough evidence.

And I did not give you a group of deists. I gave you a group of
people who, by and large, think there is a personal god. All of them
are Christians. All of them think a *supernatural* deity exists and
guides nature.

The objective claim of evolution since Darwin says nature is unguided
by Mind or its power.

*Apparently* unguided or guided only by mechanisms that are consistent
with natural causation. But that is how God seems to work with most
natural events rather than magically poofing or contradicting the
observable rules of gravitational attraction, or preventing tsunamis
or cyclones, or modifying the probabilistic predictability of rolling
the dice or playing cards over many trials, or changing the speed of
light at whim just because someone prayed. God does not work by the
rules you want him to work by.

I am well aware of subjective Theistic evolution
crackpots.

I thought you said that they did not exist, demanding that someone
give examples that they exist? Now I find out that the ten thousand
or so ministerial signers of a document claiming that there is no
conflict between *true* religion and *science* (specifically
evolution) are all "theistic evolution crackpots". Without, of
course, your 'ad hominem' attack being justified. Essentially what
you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with *you* are crackpots.
That, alas, is a sure sign of crackpottery.

So are you, feigning ignorance as if you didn't understand that we
were talking about evolution, which says intelligence is not seen in
nature.

I am quite aware of what you would like to imply: that all scientists
are evil atheists and only you have the *TRUTH*. Nature, of course,
*includes* organisms that show differing levels of 'intelligence'.
But non-organismal nature is not 'intelligent' even though non-
organismal nature has observable causal effects and consequences wrt
the organisms that inhabit it. And I have no *empirical evidence* of
any intelligence in nature greater than that of the species called H.
sapiens, even when that is not saying much. One can certainly
*believe*, as a matter of *faith*, that there is such an
intelligence. The only choice one has is whether one chooses a belief
that is contrary to empirical reality or consistent with it. The
people you call 'crackpots' have chosen a belief consistent with
empirical reality. You have chosen a belief inconsistent with
empirical reality. So who is the real crackpot?

My only point, like I said, is to show how dishonest the average
evolutionist is.



But then again you are also bluffing. None of the persons you invoked
say that God is involved in reality.

They *all* do. They do not, however, think it necessary for God to
work by magical poofing as opposed to natural mechanisms that are
known to exist. That very clearly means that they think that God is
involved in reality. *You* are the one who claims that God did not
work by 'real' (aka natural) mechanisms but had to work by magical
poofing. You are the one claiming that God cannot be involved (or
create) by natural or real mechanisms.

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Evolution since Darwin says intelligence is seen in nature. Failure to
agree on the spot shows how dishonest you are - posting subjective
TEist nonsense.

No evolutionary scientist I know of says that non-organismal nature is
'intelligent'. We leave that to crackpots like Nando. Non-organismal
nature follows general rules or laws (even probabilistic ones) and non-
organismal nature clearly affects the reproductive success of
organisms (sometimes differentially by phenotype, sometimes not).
Organismal nature (predators, disease agents, parasites) also can
affect the reproductive success of other organisms (also sometimes
differentially). Is it crackpottery to recognize this? Or is it
crackpottery to deny it? I vote the latter.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Darwin saying any such thing, but seems to believe that such a claim ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Psychotics can often defend their delusions, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Psychotics can often defend their delusions, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Since all scientists use the same methods and general approach, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Since all scientists use the same methods and general approach, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading