It is possible to reconcile any conflict between religion and science by rejecting any claim for which there is no evidence outside of an assertion by an authority.

It is not possible to reconcile a conflict between religion and science where there is a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.

There can be no 'reconciliation' between nonsense and scientific evidence, regardless of how much sugar coating is on the pill. The bible story of creation is nonsense - superstitous rubbish no matter how hard religious apologists desperateely try to find 'allegorical' components within it. No quantity of clericl letters will alter facts.

The never-ending arguments between exoteric religionists and advocates of scientism are not about ideas at all.

All such arguments are competitive struggles and primitive power efforts to capture and control the minds, emotions and bodies of the people altogether.

They are ALL based upon and extended from one or the other ground-pattern of (generally, uninspected, and, therefore, unconscious, or non-conscious)psycho-physical pre-verbally brain and nervous system patterning which is in every case being asserted, defended, protected. or otherwise defended.

Exoteric religion is the institutionalization of collective power seeking tribalized group-identity in its "sacred" form.

Conventional scientism is the institutionalization of the collective power seeking tribalized group-identity in its secular form.

All of the usual "debates" and confrontations are entirely predictable and pre-decided, and always theatrically dramatized programs of propagandistic hyper-statement versus hyper-statement wherein both sides remain insular and aggressively self-preserved.

Both scientism and creationist-religion are institutional power seeking entities that are intent upon controlling the entire human world, and even all of conditional reality.

Both cannot accept any exceptions to their reductionist drive to power and ruler-ship over the entire world.

What is more, the competitive conflicts thus generated are a constant threat to the unity, peaceful order, and practical well-being of humankind as a whole.

This is obviously also the case re the never-ending competitive conflicts between different power seeking exoteric religions--Islam vs Christianity being the most notable, and potentially the most destructive

Here’s the Clergy Statement in full that currently has 12,444 supporting signatures.

“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

Only 3 (of 12) sentences here are controversial for any Christian whom I know.

So let’s focus on these:

Sentences 7, 8 & 11:

“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. ... We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.”

Of these 3 sentences, if the first was true, then the other two would also be compelling. However, if this first sentence is not true, then the others are not very pressing.

So, it seems that the only significant sentence worth discussion is this first one.

“We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.”

The fact is that there are thousands of credentialed scientists (of different faiths, and of nominal, or no faith) around the world who do not accept that sentence, neither in its parts nor in its totality. Many of these scientists have risked ostracism to challenge the scientific establishment on this alleged ‘foundational truth’.

Michael Zimmerman says he wants to stimulate meaningful discussion, discussion which moves beyond the usual sound bite. So Michael, for your only controversial sentence, are we allowed to discuss that?

Where are we allowed to discuss it, in churches, in universities, in school board rooms, in science classrooms? If in one place, then why not in another? Are we allowed to critique evolution in any manner, or is it so foundational to your thinking that it must remain sacred and beyond criticism?

Michael Zimmerman says he wants to get beyond name calling, yet throws around the word ‘fundamentalism’, somehow forgetting how loaded that term is in this current climate.

continued:

The creationist/rationalist debate is a public theatre of ego-based power games, which pretends to be Truth's own arana of ideas, but which, in fact, is a grossly and merely exoterically dramatized theatre of primitive and irreconcilable confrontation between childish and adolescent fixed modes of ore-verbally brain and nervous system patterned structures of psycho-physical adaptation.

Neither the fixed ideas of the religionists or the advocates of scientism are any more rational, true, or closer to Truth or Reality than the fixed ideas of the opposing other.

The pre-verbally brain and nervous system patterned fixed ideas of exoteric religionists are direct extensions of essentially INFANTILE and CHILDISH dependency patterning.

And in the case of advocates of scientism, direct extensions of failed case entirely ADOLESCENT independence patterning.

In the case of individuals and institutions that argue for a combination of both religionist and scientism views, what is being dramatized and advocated is a middle of the road adolescent-versus-child ambivalence, representing a yet unresolved developmental conflict between infantile/childish dependency and adolescent independence.

In due course, the power of religion to console the infantile and childish ego must be out-grown, and the power of scientific materialism to fascinate and retard the clever adolescent ego which always attempts to defeat the infantile and childish ego, must be outgrown.

Dear Dan,

I also do not agree with the statement: "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."

However, the reason I don't agree with the statement is that science doesn't deal in truth. It deals with explanation for phenomena. It is the language of religion to talk about foundational truth. However, any challenge to a scientific theory must be another scientific theory which better explains the phenomena, evidence which counters the theory or demonstration of logical faults in the theory.

While many people including scientists may not like either evolution or its implications any challenge must contain the above elements. To my knowledge none has been presented.

Evolutionary theory is basic to our understanding of the life sciences. We have to accept it or dispense with most of modern life science.

so we know 'the science is settled' just as it is with global warming. The fantasy of evolution makes a mockery out of true scientific process. The scientific explanation for origins is deafening and the fossil records make a mockery of the theory. As someone once said that evolution is a fairytale for adults. Pseudo science (which is not really science) is used for unanswered questions to hide behind. This faith based theory is outdated and has little consensus among honest scientist. The sooner these unbelieving clergy leave the ministry the better. They are better aligned with the god hating Dawkins and his disciples.

There will always be a war between religion and science as long as the ignorant right wing fundamentalists continue their bigotry. They do not know how to read the scriptures because they are literalists for whom the last word has already been written and there is no other truth.
socratease.

Science and religion are different, are incompatible for marriage, and ever-more will be so.
That does not provide a reason for aggro.

For harmonious separate existence, all that is needed is an ability and desire by the religious community to restrain their belligerent elements from throwing rocks in the direction of science. When/if that happens the return of those rocks, pelted from of the science community, will almost certainly cease; and Richard Dawkins can get back to productive science, having gained peace from the need to write books such as The God Delusion

Dan,

<<The fact is that there are thousands of credentialed scientists (of different faiths, and of nominal, or no faith) around the world who do not accept that sentence, neither in its parts nor in its totality.>>

This is a fallacy of numbers along with the 'Argument from Authority' fallacy.

To put some perspective here, out of 480,000 scientists in the relevant life sciences, about 700 believe in Creationism. That’s a measly 0.145% - and that’s just in the United States. In other countries, that number drops to less than 0.1%.

Multiple references for this information can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Even if there were as many as you make out, it would be meaning less considering the Creationist’s ‘Statement of Faith” in comparison with the scientific method. Hence the fallacy of numbers.

Remember, it’s not what these scientists believe, it’s why they believe it.

<<Many of these scientists have risked ostracism to challenge the scientific establishment on this alleged ‘foundational truth’.>>

As I’ve said once before, all they have to do is present some evidence for peer review, but they never do. Instead, they spend their time crying foul and trying to cheat the system by sneaking their religious beliefs through the backdoor. Hence the birth of the conniving “Intelligent Design” movement.

Simply Google “of pandas and people” for the story behind this.

<<Where are we allowed to discuss it, in churches, in universities, in school board rooms, in science classrooms? If in one place, then why not in another? Are we allowed to critique evolution in any manner, or is it so foundational to your thinking that it must remain sacred and beyond criticism?>>

Anywhere one pleases. Nothing's sacred.

So long as it’s not taught in schools as though it were a legitimate theory when there is not the slightest shred of evidence for it.

Runner,

<<The fantasy of evolution makes a mockery out of true scientific process.>>

So what “true scientific process” is this you speak of?

The Bible says it;
I believe it;
That settles it?

I’d be interested to know.

What piffle. Science is predicated on truth and evidence whereas religion is predicated on superstition and fantasy.
I have more respect for nutters like runner than this lot. At least he is honest and consistent in what he believes, mad as it is.
To repudiate the bible as "just some stories" while continuing (supposedly) to follow its teachings smacks of hypocrisy and confusion.
Either you believe god created the earth in 7 days, Adam and Eve, Noah etc etc or you believe the science that says the universe is 15billion years old and humans (and every other living thing) evolved from simple single celled organisms over billions of years. The two "theories" could not be further apart, not more contradictory.

This is a war for truth and progress and this looks like a capitulation from some of the more reasonable parts of the religiosphere. (Is that a real word LOL).

Pity the war is still raging, literally as well as figuratively all across the world as we speak. From the plains of the US to the devastation of Gaza the religionists are prosecuting their war against reason and knowledge and they are more than happy when "unbelievers" are slaughtered and maimed in the name of whatever superfriend in the sky they worship.

All religions are fundamentalist dogmatism at their cores and they neither serve humanities needs nor assist in our progress materially or socially. Indeed the history of religion has been nothing but war, ignorance, repression, bigotry, injustice, torture, lies, sexual abuse and the impeding of progress. We must stop the religious fools who run our world or they will happily loose nuclear catastrophe on the rest of us and anything else they think will gain them eternal exaltation.

The authors of this letter project should just come clean and admit everything their godbothering is built on is fantasy and join the rest of us reasonable and logical people in a safer, gentler, peaceful secular world.

Mikk

The allegorical interpretation of parts of the bible is not some recent development to gloss over the incompatibility of modern scientific knowledge and biblical narrative. It is a commonplace of religion and goes back to the very early days of the Church. Origen and Augustine of Hippo both wrote extensively of the allegorical treatment of scripture. Origen (3rd century) wrote of the Eden story:

“"… who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.”

- On First Principles see http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lzUqcsvIPiUC&source=gbs_navlinks_s p.39

Unfortunately there is a shared interest between a fundamentalist minority of Christians and a fundamentalist minority of anti-Christians to insist that the mark of authentic Christianity is taking the Genesis stories literally. This is not true, and never was

"The allegorical interpretation of parts of the bible is not some recent development to gloss over the incompatibility of modern scientific knowledge and biblical narrative. It is a commonplace of religion and goes back to the very early days of the Church."

In other words, anything which is too manifestly ludicrous for even a hardened believer to swallow is deemed to be 'allegorical'; and the fact that no two sects can agree over what parts are meant to be realistic and what parts are allegorical is conveniently glossed over.

Can a scientist be a Christian? I have discussed this at length here:

http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Can+a+scientist+be+a+Christian

and the answer is No. Science discovers facts about causes and effects; but if supernatural beings exist and affect the universe, then the whole idea of cause and effect is nonsense. For instance, a religious claim that objects fall to earth because undetectable angels pull them down is just as well-supported by evidence as the scientific theory that gravity causes it to happen; but one is testable, useful and forms a basis for further enquiry -- the other is simply a dead end.

Without scepticism, science simply becomes anyone's best guess at what God is trying to do; and since we have no evidence whatsoever, your guess is no better than mine or anyone else's.

Why does any of this matter - science is science and religion is religion.
If I want to know how a nuclear reactor works I don't read the Bible. If I want to understand God I don't ask a nuclear physicist (unless he also happens to be a priest).
When I am sick I appreciate prayers but go see a doctor.
When I feel the need for spiritual nourishment I go to Church.
What's the problem?
(Ok, I know its not quite this simple - but it needn't be much more complicated, surely?)

<<there is a shared interest between a fundamentalist minority of Christians and a fundamentalist minority of anti-Christians to insist that the mark of authentic Christianity is taking the Genesis stories literally. This is not true, and never was>>

You could have fooled me. I was taught all those stories as fact when I was a kid. I dont remember anyone saying they were not true and they were just "stories". What about the story of Jesus? Did he really come back from the dead after 3 days? If not the what the hell is all that crap that goes on at easter and christmas? Do religious schools tell their pupils that the bible is just a story? Do priests state that they are just reciting a "story" in their sermons?

Yikes. Talking about tilting at Windmills.

I have difficultly believing clergy of all people would think they could get Christians to agree on evolution. I doubt you could get all Christians in the world to agree on the meaning of any single passage in the Bible. And they want them to agree on evolution?

Once that is done, what is the next big project? Unite Christians and Muslims into one faith perhaps? It would put an end to most of the terrorism we see today. If you can pull the evolution thing off, surely it is worth a shot.

Mikk

What you were taught as a kid may not be the same as is taught to grownups, or indeed kids in other denominations. In my experience young children take bible stories at face value, but start to question the naive and literal as they move into their teens or early 20s. At this point some drift away from religion, but others enter a deeper and more mature faith that doesn’t rely on taking myths and miracles literally.

Yes, there are great variations in the things that Christians believe and the parts of the bible they take to be historical narrative compared to myth, story, allegory and all the other literary forms found in scripture. But I’d guess that only a tiny minority of Australians Christians believe the world was created in seven days or the first human was a mud-man called Adam. I don’t know any.

There is an awful lot more to what’s going on at Christmas and Easter than celebrating supernatural interruptions to the flow of human existence – which may be why many atheists participate readily in the celebrations, traditions and symbols even while denying the historicity of the events they commemorate.

No priest would say that the bible is “just” a story, because story is such a powerful and effective way of communicating some forms of truth. There was probably never a race between a tortoise and a hare, or a man called Robin Hood who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, or a Danish prince who agonised over suicidal thoughts. But we have a lot to learn about life and human nature from these myths and stories.

I have never heard a sermon preached which claimed, assumed, or implied that the events described in Genesis were historical or that Adam and Eve were real people. I have heard and read much profound preaching and theology that unpacks these allegories and focuses on the truths about the human condition and human uniqueness that this part of the bible sketches so concisely – our moral consciousness, foreknowledge of our own mortality, alienation, etc.

Dan sez:

"The fact is that there are thousands of credentialed scientists (of different faiths, and of nominal, or no faith) around the world who do not accept that sentence, neither in its parts nor in its totality. Many of these scientists have risked ostracism to challenge the scientific establishment on this alleged ‘foundational truth’."

The further fact you purposefully ignore is that there are millions of scientists of all stripes, and particularly biologists whose opinions hold most weight who *do* agree with biological evolution as normally presented.

Your argument is tragic. It is so risible "project Steve" was set up in order to give it the mocking it deserves.

Are you really as ignorant as runner? Runner cannot actually name any of these scientists or outline the (no doubt very particular) manner in which current understandings of evolution fail. Can you?

The "ostracism" of such few scientists as insist repeatedly on fundy literalism only exists to the extent that they let it affect their work. Behe, Demski and Wells hardly count.

Biological evolution is just one area where religion has to step further back. Get used to it.

Rusty

Have any of you guys read Polkinhorne aPaul Davies and Keith Ward?
Seewhat they have to say.

socratease

Dear david f,

>>science doesn't deal in truth. It deals with explanation for phenomena<<
Aren’t you replacing one undefined concept, “a scientific truth” (the authors do not speak of THE truth), with another, “explanation for phenomena”? Cannot biological evolution theories (there are more of them, as I understand it) be seen as explaining - the best way we can - (certain) biological phenomena”, hence disclosing “a“ truth about them?

I can understand your dislike of the concept of “scientific truth” defined as the source of all phenomena science investigates, but the existence of such truth (or physical reality) is often a tacit, working hypothesis of many scientists. There is a similar position in philosophy concerning metaphysics (c.f. Kantian “necessary truths”) vs explanations, including the suggestion to do away with the former (c.f. Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, OUP 1981) .

A scientist is in fact in pursuit of this “truth” without claiming he/she has attained it, or even can attain, grasp it, for principal reasons. Like in mathematics you can have a Cauchy, but not convergent, sequence in an incomplete metric space M that nevertheless converges to an element of the - often abstractly constructed - completion of that space M. For instance, the sequence {1/n} in the open interval M=(0,1) does not converge to anything within that interval, nevertheless it converges to the element 0 of its completion, the closed interval [0,1].

The difference between a scientist and a theologian - both in pursuit of their “truth” - is that the former does not think the “truth” his “sequence of investigations converges to” is within his/her grasp, belongs to his/her domain M of investigation, whereas (some) theologians do. [Apologies to readers unfamiliar with metric spaces and Cauchy sequences.]

This at least is how I see the “sequence of scientific explanations converging towards the unattainable scientific truth”, except that the variety of these explanations, scientific theories, is more complicated and intertwined than a simple one-directional sequence. Nevertheless, in physics they cannot by-pass Newton (or Einstein or QM) only explain them on a “higher level”, the same with Darwin within biology.

J S Mill asks why does any of this matter?

Contrary to what is sometimes said on these pages, people of religion are not in it just for money and power. Religion is said to be a search for truth. A lot of people enter the fields of science for similar reasons.

David f says that science doesn’t deal in truth. A remarkable claim!

Why does this matter? Because people are more than naturally curious and they want to know the truth. If science is not a tool for bringing us closer to truth, then I’m happy to give up on it right now.

The Clergy Statement above claims that ‘Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.’ That is a vague and plastic statement that needs a lot of unpacking. Different people (including Davidf) may want to try and interpret it.

But for my money, I reject the notion that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’. If something is true then it’s true. And if it’s not then it’s not.

As J S Mill said earlier, ‘I know it’s not quite that simple’, but in discovering truth we are enlightened and empowered to bring about a better life for us and our kids. That is the goal of both religion and science.

AJ,
What don’t you want taught in schools? I was talking about critiquing evolution. You don’t think that school kids should be taught the ability to critique?

If you were saying arguing with numbers is a fallacy, why do you spend your next few sentences engaging in it as if it wasn’t?

If you believe it is a fallacy, a crime for which Dan needs a rebuke, are you also now also going to reprimand Rusty for using this ‘numbers fallacy’ (as well as David Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project, or those of ‘Project Steve’)? Here’s your chance. Or don’t you believe that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander?

At the end of the day, I’m sure we’ll end up agreeing that just one person with a good argument is enough.

Davidf,
You say that we have to accept evolutionary theory or dispense with ‘most of modern life science’. Could you give one example?

DSM,

That there are 1000s of scientists (a fraction of 1%) that don't believe in evolution is more a statement of human frailty than proof.

That millions of scientists (and most clerics) understand that evolution is the only scientific explanation leaves the creationists in an ever dwindling pool of denial.

As far as your critiquing evolution, using a faith based mumbo jumbo to do so has no place in education.

Dear George,

I responded to the statement: "… the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, …”

There is a difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution that explains the fact. The theory of evolution is not a foundational scientific truth or any other kind of truth.

Evolution (the extinction of species and the development of new species) is a fact. The fossil record and experiments and observations of species such as bacteria and fruit flies that have short life spans in comparison with ours demonstrate the fact.

The theory is continually modified as new mechanisms are postulated and regarded as acceptable hypotheses or falsified. Darwin postulated natural selection as a mechanism to explain the formation and extinction of species.

Gould and Eldridge postulated punctuated equilibrium which modifies natural selection. Rather than evolutionary change as a continuum they postulate that change only occurs when some stimulus causes an environmental or other change else no change occurs. Some scientists accept punctuated equilibrium as an acceptable theory. Others don't.

Margulis has postulated symbiosis as a factor in evolutionary change. One example of this is the eukaryotic cell that, according the theory of evolution through symbiosis, developed from the symbiotic relations of various procaryotic cells to a permanent relationship. Evidence for this is the fact there are bacterial forms that closely resemble the mitochondria that are integral to the eukaryotic cell. Another example is the lichen, permanent associations of algae and fungi, but postulated to have developed from separate algal and fungal organisms.

The theory rather than a truth is an explanation of the fact of evolution which is continually updated as we find out more and modify the theory by these findings or theorise and either disprove or accept the modified theory as we gather more evidence

david f: "Evidence for this is the fact there are bacterial forms that closely resemble the mitochondria that are integral to the eukaryotic cell."

Remarkably, there is better evidence than that now. At least I think it is remarkable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatena

Dear david f,

I certainly do not want to contradict what you wrote, although I prefer your original reference to “phenomena” rather than “facts”. In my Dictionary (based on the New Oxford American Dictionary) I found the following “definitions”:

Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case : a piece of information used as evidence .
Phenomenon: the object of a person's perception; what the senses … notice. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable (Wikipedia).
Truth: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality : a fact or belief that is accepted as true, e.g. the emergence of scientific truths, the fundamental truths about mankind.

You see, the concepts are intertwined. My ambiguity is with the term “indisputable”: “the sun rising in the morning” is, always was and will be (presumely as long our descendants exist) an “indisputably” observable phenomenon. On the other hand, “the Earth orbiting sun” has been “indisputable” - hence a fact according to that definition - only since the last couple of centuries.

There are many other things that have become for us indisputable facts (or truths) as a result of scientific explanation. On the other hand phenomena are always a priori given, unexplained (although some of them unobservable without tools provided by the application of scientific investigation). So the preference for “truth“, “fact“ or “explanation of phenomena”, is not that unequivocal.

[Admittedly, my post contained a personal view about the scientist’s “pursuit of truth”, directly unrelated to the original article (and your post), since I was curious about your reaction to it. There is namely a difference between e.g. a biologist’s and a theoretical physicist’s or cosmologis’s approach to this, among other things also because for the former “time” is something in the background, a priori given, whereas for the latter the concept of time is also part of the investigation, part of the reality he/she tries to model, explain. Maybe also for these reasons there are more outright atheists (i.e. excluding deists) among biologists than among theoretical physicists as Polkinghorne claims].

Thanks for your response, Dan.

<<What don’t you want taught in schools?>>

I don’t want children to be taught anything that is demonstrably false as if it were true.

<<I was talking about critiquing evolution. You don’t think that school kids should be taught the ability to critique?>>

Absolutely I do, and you know that. But ‘critiquing’ and ‘Creationism’ are two very different things. Critiquing means to critically evaluate something, Creationism on the other hand, is that act of denying all evidence for religious reasons, and shifting the goal posts when someone meets one of their challenges.

In fact, that being said, Creationism is the very opposite to critiquing.

You’re pushing this idea again that evolution has some detrimental problems. If you want to continue down that path then please state what these problems are, don’t just insinuate. That’s very unhelpful.

<<If you were saying arguing with numbers is a fallacy, why do you spend your next few sentences engaging in it as if it wasn’t?>>

All I was doing was bringing some perspective to your comment about those “thousands of credentialed scientists”; as I suspect Rusty was too.

Numbers only become a fallacy if they are offered as some sort of proof. You offered numbers to create a false sense that evolution under serious doubt, or that it is in some sort of crisis, and as we both know, Creationists fall victim to the false dichotomy that if evolution isn’t true, then Creationism is (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#116311). Thus it became a fallacy.

I think this should sufficiently answer your next paragraph...

<<If you believe it is a fallacy, a crime for which Dan needs a rebuke, are you also now also going to reprimand Rusty for using this ‘numbers fallacy’ (as well as David Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project, or those of ‘Project Steve’)? Here’s your chance. Or don’t you believe that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander?>>

As for ‘Project Steve’ though, that’s simply a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun that - again - put the Creationist’s numbers fallacy into perspective.

Continued...

...Continued

<<At the end of the day, I’m sure we’ll end up agreeing that just one person with a good argument is enough.>>

We can already agree on that. So if you can show me a good argument from a Creation “scientist” that hasn’t been debunked over-and-over then please mention it.

Runner,

I’m still waiting for a response to my question about your alleged “true scientific process”.

Or was that comment simply a timid and unfounded response to my point to Dan on the other thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#161319) about the difference between the ‘Statement of Faith’ and the scientific method?

If so, then you could at least have the courage and courtesy to acknowledge that you simply made it up.

Thanks.

George wrote: "I certainly do not want to contradict what you wrote, although I prefer your original reference to “phenomena” rather than “facts”. In my Dictionary (based on the New Oxford American Dictionary) I found the following “definitions”:"

Dear George,

Why not contradict what I wrote? You do it so well. I prefer my original reference also. I found your last paragraph basing the reasons for theistic belief on attitudes to time most interesting. I enjoy your expositions.

A.J. Phillips

Evolution is not science because
1. because it can't be observed. One Professor of physics rightly wrote
''In fact evolution became in a sense scientific religion; almost all science have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.'

2. It can't be tested. One senior Palaentologist writes 'It is easy to make up stories of how one form rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for their is no way of putting them to the test.

3. If evolution was scientific the fossil records would back it up. Instead we have been left with desperate attempts and often lies to come up with one fossil that 8is in any way conclusive. Many stories are built around some very dubious claims. LIke the founder of Lucy's skull which was later to be described as "imagination made of plaster of paris" by his son.

Evolution is crap science and has done nothing to enhance man's life. A century after Darwin's theory evolutionist still only have stories to tell.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words.

>>Why not contradict what I wrote?<<
I meant your reference to Gould and Eldridge and Margulis, since I trust your knowledge of facts (sic), about biological evolution, more than my own.

AJ,
By what you’re saying, it’s okay for evolutionists to enter into the numbers fallacy but not creationists.

It’s okay for you, Rusty, Michael Zimmerman, and the people of Project Steve to talk about the large numbers of people who concur with evolution. But when creationists make mention that thousands of scientists around the world doubt evolution to be factual, then only they have committed the ‘numbers fallacy’. For after all, according to the sheet of logical fallacies, truth is not a nose count.

According to you, when evolutionists talk about numbers, they’re excused (they must be, they’re on the good guys side.) They’re not committing the numbers fallacy because they are just ‘bringing some perspective’ to the discussion, or having ‘a bit of tongue-in-cheek- fun’, and not really offering that as any kind of argument or proof, unlike those wretched, conniving, sneaky, creationist cheats.

Listen AJ, what I suggest you do is to take your famous list of logical fallacies, and file them deeply back where you found them, and don’t bring them out again until you’re willing to apply them evenly across the board to all parties concerned.

Dan,you are quite right.
I wish to offer this slender post as my humble and modest contribution
There can be no confrontation of science and religion therefore there can be no choices to be made,neither right nor false.
There is a reason for what I say.
Sciences are about the things that makeup this earth. They have a strong sense real basis.There are measurements that can be made and theories sustained and made fact.
Religon is all about God and whatever flows from God. God is not of this earth and there can be no definitive statements about it that csn be verified or disproved.
I believe God is an ineffable and ultimate reality way beyond human comprehension.You either experience God or you dont. If you do you cannot articulate anything about god despite the hundreds of tomes written about that reality. The extraordinary thing is that it doesnt stop the authors from affirming that God can never be understood.
But there is no real choice to be made between science and religion,neither good nor false.

socratease

Runner,

You still didn’t answer my question. And thanks for the mined quotes; they’re a classic example of the ‘Argument from Authority’ fallacy. Could you provide links to the entire book/article/chapter they were said in?

You see, the ‘Argument from Authority’ quotes you quoted don’t give the context of what was being said, nor do they convey why the quoted person believed what the quotes many or may not show them to believe. That’s the most important point.

<<Evolution is not science because
1. because it can't be observed...>>

Evolution is both observable and testable. Lenski’s experiment both tests and observes evolution. Now I know you’re tempted to claim that we haven’t seen one ‘kind’ of animal evolve into another ‘kind’, but before you do, just remember that if we were to observe, say, a wolf-like creature turn into a whale in a life-time, then this would disprove evolution, so your point is invalid.

Creationists seem to think that the fact that we can’t repeat history is some sort of gift handed to them on a plate, but it isn’t.

First, you have to specify at which point one species becomes another (scientists would usually consider the point at which two species couldn’t reproduce to be a species change - which we see all the time), then you have to identify a mechanism - or something - that prevents species from evolving into what we would consider a totally different species.

We can still observe the continental shifts along with the fossils buried throughout different layers of the strata; and all observations here fit evolution perfectly. There have been thousands of fossils found, many of which show some surprisingly smooth transitions form one species to another.

If you know of any example that contradicts evolution, then by all means, please mention it.

<<Many stories are built around some very dubious claims. LIke the founder of Lucy's skull which was later to be described as "imagination made of plaster of paris" by his son.>>

Described by Creationists I presume.

Could you provide a link to this claim?

Continued...

...Continued

Even if you could though, it would be irrelevant as it is the entire body of Lucy supports the idea that she’s a very early human, not just the head.

<<Evolution is crap science and has done nothing to enhance man's life.>>

Evolution has done a lot of things, some of the many were mentioned recently by david f... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82071

<<A century after Darwin's theory evolutionist still only have stories to tell.>>

Could you give an example since the lucy “story” [sic] example fell? While you’re at it, could you answer the question please? What is this “true scientific process” you speak of?

Some references to your quotes would be good too.

Thanks.

Dan,

<<By what you’re saying, it’s okay for evolutionists to enter into the numbers fallacy but not creationists.>>

I neither said, nor implied anything of the sort, and if “evolutionists” [sic] used the numbers fallacy, then that would be just as wrong. Fortunately, they don’t need to.

I will thank you not to misrepresent what I say.

<<It’s okay for you, Rusty, Michael Zimmerman, and the people of Project Steve to talk about the large numbers of people who concur with evolution.>>

As I explained earlier, I didn’t use the numbers fallacy. And if Rusty and Michael Zimmerman have, then it was still fallacious.

Let us assume for a minute that they definitely did though, there would still be one big difference between their fallaciousness and yours...

Their fallaciousness wasn’t intended to deceive...

Firstly, you used a fallacy to give a false impression; Secondly, you use that as evidence for Creationism (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#116311).

So my points still stand; rendering the following irrelevant...

<<Listen AJ, what I suggest you do is to take your famous list of logical fallacies, and file them deeply back where you found them, and don’t bring them out again until you’re willing to apply them evenly across the board to all parties concerned.>>

Now, instead of hyper-focusing on what you thought was a glass jaw, can you address the other points I made in my first response to you on this thread?

Thanks.

Socratease made sense in his post that stated <" Sciences are about the things that makeup this earth. They have a strong sense real basis.There are measurements that can be made and theories sustained and made fact.
Religon is all about God and whatever flows from God. God is not of this earth and there can be no definitive statements about it that csn be verified or disproved."

That about says it all in a nutshell!
While creationists ask us to 'believe' what they say is true because God 'said so' through the men of thousands of years ago who wrote a book....right?

Scientists through the ages have discovered many cures for many diseases and illnesses, as well as immunizations to protect us.
They discovered anaesthetics, antibiotics, surgery, prosthetics, and chemotherapy.

All these are concrete, measurable discoveries.
They have come up with ideas to make our lives safer and longer.
I think I would rather put my trust with these guys thanks.

Yet we are asked by creationists to throw out anything scientists say about evolution because their unseen God apparently 'says so'.
Yeah right!

As usual, there seems to be a postmodern void of the non existence of truth, but perceptions of the subtext;

Science and Religion are never based on Philosophical Assumptions- and to be subjected to Philosophic assumptions creates subtext and subcategory of meaningless garble and junk that creates confusion , and fosters delusionement;- That is the point , and why it is used;
Read this rather long Essay;

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/178/
More could be learnt if David Stove was used as a philosophical launch pad in Universities, instead of the Anti- theses of absolute sociopathic Junkets for looters.

Yes The polytheistic Ideals of the self proclaimed Gods of Nothingness, but of the death and destruction theses.
Sound Evil enough.

AJ Phillips

I commend your patience with Runner. I suspect you are simply beating your reasonable head against a wall of "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you".

Despite the demonstrable evidence of evolution, the understanding and technology that such knowledge provides us, let's pretend;

let's pretend that evolution is wrong, does this prove Creationism is correct? Of course not!

The only 'evidence' offered is "the bible tells me so" (as Suzeonline says) - the bible provides nothing in explanation for the existence of fossils layered in strata applicable to their species type, nor the inexorable movement of continents (Australia moves at approximately 5mm per year), I can place a link where this knowledge is explained far better than I can (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/contdrift.htm), but will the likes of the dogmatic fundamentalist even try to understand? Again, of course not, to do so would threaten their carefully structured self, their sneering attitude to others, their raison d'etre. Meanwhile they sit at their computers, are treated by their doctors, drive their fossil-fuelled cars, watch TV's, eat the fruits of selective breeding (man-made evolution) all the while mocking the study, research and sheer hard-work performed by millions of people.... and have effectively wasted 5 minutes of my life right now that I will never get back.

Severin

'Meanwhile they sit at their computers, are treated by their doctors, drive their fossil-fuelled cars, watch TV's, eat the fruits of selective breeding (man-made evolution) all the while mocking the study'

You are either deluded or deceitful to say that these things are a result of the evolution faith. Your little chance theories have nothing to do with the design of cars or TV's or the progress of medicine. I suggest you don't get so full of your own importance.

If only runner wasn't so thick about pastor's importance, or those pamphlets he hands out.

Rusty

AJ,
On one point in your last post we agree:

Your points still stand, just as well as they ever have.

Runner (20feb,7.02pm) requires correction:

(1) New genes have arisen to provide resistance to antibiotics not previously existent. Insect resistance to novel synthetic compounds is similar. The divergence of the crucifers into closely related
species and into a couple of additional genera is more than adequately documented.
Given that most evolution *is* over extended time frames, it is disingenuous to suggest that it can be "observed" in the same manner as watching birds fly. This counts as "honesty" for you fundies? Lots of excellent science (and other critical examination) is done after-the-fact, reconstructing events from the evidence. Try telling a geologist he doesn't do science (then run away), or an astronomer for that matter. Engineers investigating crashes do it all the time.

(2) It is tested in the same way as many studies. Having established a robust hypothesis from half the data, test on the rest. It is tested by every new finding, the vast majority of which fit into the existing framework. We expect to find species with broad genetic and phenotypic spread (like dogs) that still interbreed, separated species that almost interbreed (horses and donkeys), and species that have diverged and have lots of co-existent relatives, some which can (others not) interbreed (crucifers, Darwin's finches and *everything else*). Which paleontologist? Go ask pastor, *again*.

(3) The fossil record *does* back it up, what is your problem? There are thousands of excellent fossils and many more to come. Does your quote-mining make you feel smart? Did Johanson *really* say that? Given the clear fit of Lucy with other hominid fossils, you should give the proper reference for such criticism of Lucy's reconstruction. Then we can critique it, your methods, and your intent.

You adhere to a cult which detracts from the efforts of qualified, diligent, honest scientists who *do* enhance man's life. You're willing to accept dishonest reflections of science that suit your own view. The bible you claim to adhere to forbids this.

Two thousand years after joshua, and yet more after moses, your lot *only* have stories to tell, usually cribbed from other writings of the day.

Rusty

Hi Suzeonline

You say

“Scientists through the ages have discovered many cures for many diseases and illnesses, as well as immunizations to protect us.

They discovered anaesthetics, antibiotics, surgery, prosthetics, and chemotherapy.

All these are concrete, measurable discoveries.

They have come up with ideas to make our lives safer and longer.”

Can’t argue with any of this, but I would also like to point out scientists have also done dreadful things: weapons of mass destruction for starters, some people aren’t too impressed with genetically modified food and so on.

Likewise whilst religion can do terrible things, no question, it is responsible for wonderful things, think of all the church aid agencies down the ages dedicated to the relief of poverty, ill health. The church (denomination) I belong to has people in many very poor nations working their butts off for a pittance out of love for God and love for the people they serve.

You also say,

“Yet we are asked by creationists to throw out anything scientists say about evolution because their unseen God apparently 'says so'.”

Well some creationists might say so, but I don’t see the Bible outlawing evolution. My opposition to evolution is based on scientific and philosophical grounds. The whole notion of the survival of the fittest is laughable when we consider how much care and protection was needed for the pregnant women and the safeguarding of the newly born child progressing thro’ the early years of great vulnerability way back (and especially) when nature was red in tooth and claw. If evolution is such a great theory please explain why the human race has always devoted so much resource to priests, medical persons and police, all operating in contradiction to the onward and upward evolutionary process.

No, I object to evolution on philosophical and scientific grounds.

David Palmer

Like many you confuse the meaning of survival of the fittest as to mean the strongest. If that were the case, we would not have the diversity of creatures and plants that are neither strong or powerful. In fact it is the human practice of nurturing their young (as do other primates) that enables our survival.

An easy to follow definition is to be found at Wiki, whicc should explain 'natural selection' adequately for you.

"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" [4]. Hence, it is not a scientific description,[5] and is both incomplete and misleading."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Runner I can only conclude that your accusations of me as being either deceitful or delusional as projections of your own short-comings onto me. I have presented my posts to the best of my knowledge and ability - this does not make me a liar, that I may learn and understand more than I do now is to be hoped for, as it is for all inquiring minds if they are not to remain mired in dogma.

Severin,
There are some pretty harsh words going back and forward between you and Runner. He calls you deceitful and delusional after being offended by some of your adjectives. According to you, he’s part of the of dogmatic, fundamentalist, la-la-la group who mock scientific research.

Okay, Runner used the four letter word, ‘crap’, but his post seemed an honest response (to someone else), and didn’t include or deserve the disparaging tone that he was met with in your post. The golden rule (do unto others ...) probably applies.

However, I do appreciate your last sentence (‘I have presented my posts to the best of my knowledge and ability - this does not make me a liar, that I may learn and understand more than I do now is to be hoped for, as it is for all inquiring minds if they are not to remain mired in dogma.’)

For a long time, I have had to put up with others accusing me of being a liar, or other choice adjectives, when they have had difficulty responding to what I have said in a civilised manner.

All this reminds me of what Michael Zimmerman said in the original article that set off this discussion. He said he wanted to ‘to raise the quality of the dialogue on this important topic’ and get beyond the name calling. Unfortunately, just a few paragraphs later, he himself set the tone of his own discussion by describing some people in derogatory terms as narrow and fundamentalist.

By the way, Runners point, to which I agree, is that today’s technology has nothing to do with and owes nothing to Neo-Darwinian theory. Neo-Darwinism, or the alleged common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, is a theory of history, empty of any benefits to biology that theories of design cannot apply more beneficially.

Another quote for Rusty

'The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there is no laboratory models: hence once can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.'

"We can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been helpful." Richard E. Dickerson, Ph.D. (physical chemistry) Professor California Institute of Technology), 'Chemical evolution and the origins of life'. Scientific America, vol 239(3) September 1978, pp.77 and 78.

inconvenient facts seem to be consistently ignored by evolutionist. No wonder the gw 'experts' got their fairytales so wrong. Most of them are no doubt evolutionist who are use to ignoring inconvenient facts.

Dan S de Merengue: "By the way, Runners point, to which I agree, is that today’s technology has nothing to do with and owes nothing to Neo-Darwinian theory."

Which makes both runner and yourself wrong.

In my field, which is computers, genetic algorithms are regularly used to search for optimal solutions better than any designer has found. In fact there are a number of techniques lifted directly from watching how biology does it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

And here we have a more topical treatment of the subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

In biology there is much wider application. There is some solid mathematics behind evolution. For example, if you assume that resistance to drugs is accurately modeled by random variation and survival of the fittest, then it naturally follows resistance will develop much more slowly if two anti-viral are introduced simultaneously to one, followed by the other when the first becomes ineffective.

Dan S de Merengue: "In reality, and in short, the debate concerns the true nature of the origins of life on this planet."

There is no debate where it matters for people like me Dan, which is to say in the peer reviewed literature published biological journals as opposed to say a journal on theology.

Dan S de Merengue

I am sure you are fully au fait with the old adage:

"we reap what we sow"

Runner has, from his very first post on OLO, treated with contempt, any posters with whom he disagrees. I know that any courtesy on my part towards him will be wasted as it has been in the past (under a previous name).

In addition, he has never attempted to learn from the frequently patient and informative posts of others - such as AJ Phillips.

As for your inability to understand how much of our modern technology we owe to science - particularly the understanding of evolution, geology and astronomy, well, that is your burden and your loss.

As I stated and you acknowledged; I remain open to learning as discoveries and understanding are made every day - child of the universe that I am.

Severin,

Thanks for your kind words.

To be honest, I really enjoy debating the topic - it’s a labour of love - although I admit that’s a little cheeky of me considering all the evidence is stacked my way. I can’t help but feel like an adult picking on children sometimes. I just remind myself from time-to-time that the wilful ignorance of these people is a conscious decision they make themselves.

I don’t usually bother with Runner though. Dealing with such a hateful person makes me feel dirty and uneasy.

Rusty,

Thanks for saving me the time. As you can see though, Runner didn’t even bother reading it.

Runner,

Dan’s trying his darnedest to disassociate himself from such blatantly dishonest tactics such as quote mining. You’re really not doing him any favours by continuing to do it so contemptuously.

Anyway, you still haven’t answered my questions.

Could you please provide me with some references, and could you either tell me what “true scientific process” is, or be big enough to admit that you made it up. You’ve accused others of being dishonest, but until you answer my questions, the only dishonest person here appears to be yourself.

Thanks.

Dan,

I’d really appreciate it if you could stop misrepresenting what others say...

<<[Michael Zimmerman] said he wanted to ‘to raise the quality of the dialogue on this important topic’ and get beyond the name calling. Unfortunately, just a few paragraphs later, he himself set the tone of his own discussion by describing some people in derogatory terms as narrow and fundamentalist.>>

Zimmerman did no such thing. He described the view of some as “narrow” and mentioned that “when fundamentalism trumps science, all of us lose.”

Both demonstrable observations.

You are trying to divert attention away from the fact that there is no evidence on the Creationist side of the debate by smearing the author of the article. This is clear in your continuous dodging and weaving (speaking of which, I’m still waiting for some evidence of a young earth (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980&page=0)).

Continued...

...Continued

And since when did the term “fundamentalist” become derogatory? You said yourself that you don’t mind being called a fundamentalist under a proper definition of the word (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#103675)

Fundamentalist: of or relating to or tending toward fundamentalism. (http://tinyurl.com/yc2y9ws)

Fundamentalism: the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth. (http://tinyurl.com/yfp89xr)

<<By the way, Runners point, to which I agree, is that today’s technology has nothing to do with and owes nothing to Neo-Darwinian theory. Neo-Darwinism, or the alleged common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, is a theory of history, empty of any benefits to biology that theories of design cannot apply more beneficially.>>

I’ll assume you’re differentiating between macroevolution and microevolution here.

If you had read the page david f linked to on the other thread (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html), you would have seen these other points:

“7. Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, palaeontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.”

“8. Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.”

It sounds like you prefer ignorance over knowledge if the knowledge has no practical application.

What is it that you’re trying to point out in regards to macroevolution not having much practical application in today’s world?

Too be fair, could you also list the different ways in which Creationism has contributed anything with any practical application?

There must be quite a few considering how much you and Runner are belittling macroevolution for apparently not having any practical application.

Thanks in advance!

Well done runner! You can read a crib sheet.

To correct you again, that is not "another quote", that is the *first* assertion you have made that is attributed. The rest you just make up as suits you. You'll be up to junior high-school report level soon.

Actually, you don't have the wit to make this stuff up, you get it from pastor, who in turn reads a couple of "50 scientists who..." books.

You have twenty-four hours to relate how Dickerson's *lament* for the *then* lacking information translates to a telling argument for anything but your dishonesty.

I worked in cancer genetics for some time, and had reason to peruse many of Dickerson's papers on DNA-ligand interactions. His views on creationism are a matter of court record, as are his views on the feasibility of early molecular evolution.

Runner, you are dishonest, and you dishonesly represent the view of this scientist for your own shabby purposes.

Go look it up you lazy, lying little twit. If pastor gave you that quote, so is he.

By the way, when scientists cite papers, we don't use single lines that pervert the actual intent of the paper.

Rusty

Rusty,

Why not simply quote this, obviously endorsed by Dickerson himself:

“(Dickerson’s) analyses of the structures of cytochromes c from mammals, fish and bacteria allowed him to demonstrate the principles of evolution at the molecular level. As a consequence, he served as an expert witness in trials challenging the imposition of creationism on our science curricula, and lectured on the threat of creationism to science teaching. “ (http://faculty.chemistry.ucla.edu/institution/personnel?personnel_id=45877).

There cant be any conflict between religion and science. The new gospels are being written by our scientists. The mythological stuff will only be relevant to the backward and archives of the future.What was once Religion is being extended and made relevant by and through the sciences.
Amen.

Socratease,
On the good side, scientists usually have a well-developed sense of humour and a sharper awareness of what we *don't* know than the religious, especially in proportion to the capacity to deliver. Be of good cheer We *know* we are subject to correction.

George,
Because runner deserves a chance to show he *really* read and understood the paper he quotes. Maybe he just has some "evolution debunked" book so common in religious bookstores that gives him snippets like this to "tickle his ears"? Maybe not.

I wonder if he read the rest of that issue of SciAm? It was devoted to evolution and had excellent overviews of many aspects from such distinguished scientists as Ernst Mayr and Lewontin, maybe Skinner.

My own copy is filed with all the other old stuff in deep-storage (beware of the leopard!) and apparantly needs removal.

*Of course* Dickerson's contribution contains many phrases about this or that being "speculative". Unlike the great sweep of metazoan biological evolution, the emergence of recognisable cellular life from prebiotic conditions is incredibly remote in time and in the chemical conditions of the day.

Starting with the Miller-Urey electroreduction of organic molecules, Dickerson exhaustively catalogues the chemistries contributing to the formation of numerous amino acids and nucleotides. Despite difficulties, it identifies feasible chemistry for the formation of polymers of both. Having established that the capacity to develop metabolism existed (a very intersting result of Miller-Urey), Dickerson, yes, laments the lack of data on the formation of a working genetic system.

Did anybody think it would be easy?

The early nineties had some interesting stuff on RNA catalysts. They can be templates for replication, they have catalytic properties, and they can directly bind amino acids and other cofactors to enhance that catalysis. They are easily isolated from random pools of polymerised RNA.

In 1978 Dickerson asserted that both the genetic and the metabolic capacities of life needed to evolve from simpler precursors in parallel. How better than when combined in one molecule?

Inconvenient facts?

These quoting games would be fun if they weren't so tediously repetitive.

Rusty

Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.

Given the persistent total absence of the supernatural, and the complete uselessness to us of absent things, deliberately *not* invoking it has been damn useful.

Rusty

Dan,

I remember back when I was a fundamentalist believer, I used to pretend to not have a problem with science. I’d tell myself that science was great, so long as it was proper science, unlike that awful, awful evolution stuff. It was always comforting to remind myself that there were thousands of credentialed scientists around the world who didn’t accept evolution.

But deep down I resented science as a whole, because it always seemed to be out to disprove my beliefs and it frustrated me that most scientists wouldn’t take my beliefs seriously.

Contrary to how you spoke, I always suspected this was how you quietly felt too. And now, after 2 years of applying pressure, the cracks are finally appearing and your true feelings about science as a whole are starting to show through...

<<Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule.>>

This is a landmark moment. Boy, does it bring back memories!

<<Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.>>

Yes. That would be a good start because, as Creationists demonstrate, the moment we invoke the supernatural - or anything else unquantifiable, immeasurable or mystical - we stop learning.

If we allow the established churches to start pushing their unprovable ideas onto science, where do we stop?

Do we just let any old crank who claims to have a direct connection to a figment of his imagination insist that their ideas be taken seriously?

Imagine how our progress would slow and eventually stop as we’d inevitably return to the days of heretic burning and witch trials in little as a couple of generations.

Please tell me, Dan:

How does one invoke the supernatural into the study of science, without resorting to the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy, or the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy?

What kind of evidence would one look for?

DSM,

You obviously think science is a game and that scientists deliberately avoid any evidence of supernatural involvement.

The main point that creationists miss is that there is yet to be found one shred of evidence that supernatural forces are at work. Thus unwilling to ascribe phenomena to mystical beings, they strive to find the real reasons. In doing so they unlock the mysteries of nature, and are able to use it to improve life.

"Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."

as if there's an alternative. invoking the supernatural is not explaining, it's simply giving up.

Only the post-modern religion is worthwhile. That means a religion without God.

Get it?

socratease

AJ,
I am able to accept the original, historical definition of fundamentalism, but the definition used these days in common parlance is usually used as an attempted slur. Zimmerman associates it with being ‘narrow’. This I don’t accept.

I agree that knowledge, even before any practical application, is a worthy end in itself. The reason I emphasised the practical in my post was in response to Davidf (18/2), who was challenging me regarding the practical side.

You say that you’re waiting for me to give you evidence of a young earth. You said this on the other thread, the one where we were discussing the rejection by Dawkins and other atheists of the proposal to publicly debate the issue.

So as I said to you, if you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement with me that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne in March?

AJ,
You got through your last 350 words without calling me a scandalous evil doer. Then you compare me a little to yourself. Is this the new, warmer, more congenial AJ?

Actually, I’d like to think that in essence we are quite different.

I don’t find comfort in reminding myself of the number of scientists who don’t accept evolution. If numbers mattered to me, then I’d be an evolutionist. Rather, I am persuaded by the arguments creationists have put forward.

I do not resent science, and don’t ever remember doing so. I am concerned that philosophies of materialism may lead to an undermining of science’s foundations. Science took great leaps forward when people started to look for order within the physical world, believing that an orderly designer had imposed his order upon it.

In simpler terms, you could take a bucket of Lego and empty it on the ground, a million or a squillion times, and it will never assemble itself into a Lego house or car. If we continue with this materialist philosophy that says that the order we perceive came into the universe by its own natural and physical properties, then we may lose motivation for our own aspirations of purpose in construction or engineering. Why bother? Couldn’t we let everything go and run its own course, and things will be able to construct themselves?

Imagine how our progress would slow and eventually stop.

When you speak about those old cranks who started pushing their improvable ideas onto science, were you thinking of Isaac Newton? “The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Did Newton “stop learning” at this point? Was he someone who had given up (as Bushbasher suggests)?

Do you or did you really think that science is just a game? I had trouble interpreting what you were saying. I’ve always optimistically believed that science was a quest for truth.

"I do not resent science, and don’t ever remember doing so."

you do when you believe that it conflicts with your religiously inspired beliefs. you resent evolution with an irrational passion.

"Did Newton “stop learning” at this point? Was he someone who had given up (as Bushbasher suggests)?"

no he wasn't. because, unlike e.g. intelligent design twats, newton didn't invoke the supernatural as a faux-explanation for the natural, only for what lies behind the natural. newton's invocation of god was irrelevant to his science, except in as much as it led him to believe that the universe was governed by laws.

a better example is kepler. when kepler tried to read the mind of god, kepler created pseudoscientific nonsense. kepler's laws came not from believing in god, but from ignoring god.

Dear Dan,

Science is not a quest for truth. Science is an attempt to understand the relations of animate and inanimate matter. An explanation of the workings can always be replaced by a better explanation. Scientific 'laws' are subject to falsification. A counter example or a phenomenon which does not fit the law means that the law must be discarded or revised. Truth is not subject to falsification. If it were it would not be truth.

Evolution is simply fact as shown by the fossil record and experiments with fruit flies, bacteria and other creatures. The theory of evolution has been revised and will continue to be revised as we find out more about the relations of organisms.

Dan,

<<Zimmerman associates [fundamentalism] with being ‘narrow’. This I don’t accept.>>

You had still misrepresented what Zimmerman said by specifically claiming that he called others personally (rather than just their views) “narrow” and “fundamentalists”.

<<The reason I emphasised the practical in my post was in response to Davidf (18/2), who was challenging me regarding the practical side.>>

Okay, but then, when David gave examples, you did the classic Creationist trick of shifting the goal posts by going from evolution, to just macroevolution. The only difference being time, mind you.

<<...as I said to you, if you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement with me that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne in March?>>

And I asked you to stop dodging and weaving.

Regardless of the topic of the thread, you spoke as though it was possible that the Earth is young, and as you yourself did on another thread with another poster (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#81855), I held you to account for it.

<<I am persuaded by the arguments creationists have put forward.>>

If you are so persuaded by their arguments, then why is it that you refuse to accept my challenge to test the accuracy of them on the other thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#162267) when you made a similar claim about the arguments at creation.com?

Could it be because every time you provided a link to a creation.com article, li’l ol’ amateur me has discredited it?

<<I am concerned that philosophies of materialism may lead to an undermining of science’s foundations.>>

No, you specifically said “invoke the supernatural”, and now you’re trying to backpedal.

So again, please explain what kind of evidence one would look for to invoke the supernatural without resorting the common logical fallacies.

<<Science took great leaps forward when people started to look for order within the physical world, believing that an orderly designer had imposed his order upon it.>>

Continued...

...Continued

As I’ve said before, those people only ever relied on natural methodology and found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to inhibit their inquiry.

<<In simpler terms, you could take a bucket of Lego and empty it on the ground, a million or a squillion times, and it will never assemble itself into a Lego house or car.>>

Firstly, lego doesn’t reproduce and doesn’t utilize energy from the sun.

Secondly, (and for the umpteenth time now) evolution isn’t about random chance. Natural selection makes the randomness of mutations into the non-random process of evolution.

I wasn’t joking when I said the 747 in a hurricane analogy was invalid (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#162266).

<<If we continue with this materialist philosophy ... Why bother? Couldn’t we let everything go and run its own course, and things will be able to construct themselves?

Imagine how our progress would slow and eventually stop.>>

Our progress hasn’t slowed or stopped yet? Even despite Creationists providing nothing but a distraction.

In fact, the more the churches back-off, the faster we progress.

<<When you speak about those old cranks who started pushing their improvable ideas onto science, were you thinking of Isaac Newton?>>

I wasn’t speaking about anyone in particular. Please re-read my post.

<<Did Newton “stop learning” at this point? Was he someone who had given up (as Bushbasher suggests)?>>

No, and I refer to my point above about natural methodology.

<<Do you or did you really think that science is just a game?>>

You were the one who said that, Dan. Not me.

<<I had trouble interpreting what you were saying. I’ve always optimistically believed that science was a quest for truth.>>

Why the Statement of Faith then?

Dan, do you just run on auto-pilot or something?

As soon as I’ve finished debunking every one of your claims, you simply reboot like a computer and start all over again.

I think we’ve gone over every one of your arguments about five or six time now, and they’re still falling flat every time.

Bloggers all

Actually no one has a choice to make between science and religion.
Science is a study about a totally different reality that is sense -real-based and empirically determined. Religion is about another totally different reality ....one that is abstract,speculative and about the problem of God and life and death and the Other World if there is one.
The choice dear all is whether you accept or reject science or whether you accept or reject religion. There is no comparison or contrast that may be drawn between the two. You're dealing with two very different realities.

socratease

AJ,
Macroevolution was your word, not mine.

Socratease,
I can agree with some of your last post.

However, I put it to you that two of your sentences within your post are quite contradictory to each other.

1) Actually no one has a choice to make between science and religion.

2) The choice dear all is whether you accept or reject science or whether you accept or reject religion.

These contradict, or would you care to clarify?

David,
You say science is not a quest for truth. You’ve said science doesn’t deal in truth.

Yet you say evolution is a ‘fact’. What is a fact if it is not a truth?

I know George went through a few dictionary definitions for these earlier. He seemed to think the two are pretty similar. George wanted to emphasis whether the phenomenon was ‘indisputable’ as a key element.

You say the difference is something to do with whether it is subject to falsification.

Elsewhere, I’ve defined evolution as the commonly accepted view of neo-Darwinism, the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection.

I like to carefully define what we’re talking about. Without careful definitions, people could needlessly argue while possibly being in agreement.

I posed this definition of evolution, as it is the only thing in dispute. Observable biological processes are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether the processes display this concept of neo-Darwinism. If they do, then we may be forced to admit it into the category that we call facts, truths, realities, or whatever other appropriate noun.

You may choose another definition of evolution. That word has many meanings, most of which are not in dispute by anyone.

But for neo-Darwinism, to demonstrate that it is a fact by your standards, we’d have to propose how we would subject it to falsification.

Dear Dan,

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss anything further with you. I really do not think you are capable of grasping some ideas because, although I think you have a normal, even possibly an above normal intelligence, I think you are blinded by your religious beliefs. I also don't think you know what science is. I regret any postings to you. AJ Philips has tried to explain ad nauseam. He may continue to try. I won't.

Where's the contradiction, Dan?
In not having choice between the two is a choice of sorts anyway.
The two are co-existent, aren't they? If you go for one the other is rejected even though it can be said that for th chooser there really was no choice!!
Get it ?

Very deep
LOL

socratease

Davidf,
Thanks for crediting me with above average intelligence.

I thank you for your intelligent, considered, and engaging opinions, usually in welcome contrast to the rudeness I’ve received from some.

I’ve never claimed to have high qualifications in science. However, the basic ideas are not hard to grasp. If someone who clearly had scientific qualifications superior to mine told me that I didn’t understand science, then I’d have to accept that, I’d cop it on the chin. However, I don’t think that person is you.

----

Socratease,
No, I don’t exactly get what you’re saying. But I can agree with some of it.

I’d like to work with the best of both, not choose between the two. I’d hope that if both scientists and religionists did their jobs well, they might compliment each other’s work to the benefit of all. Maybe that’s too optimistic.

Dan,

It’s been pointed out to you that you argue with insinuation so that others have to draw the inferences themselves and take a level of responsibility for your statements.

That’s very much what’s happening here. When I get more specific, and mention what you were talking about when you argued that the history side of evolution has no practical application, this is the result...

<<Macroevolution was your word, not mine.>>

That you didn’t specifically use the word doesn’t matter. You changed the goal posts by going from evolution in general, to the history side of evolution - which is more in the macroevolution realm.

My point still stands, I’m afraid.

<<...the basic ideas [of science] are not hard to grasp.>>

No, they’re not. But if you think that applying the ‘God of the Gaps’, and the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacies to prove design is science, then no, you don’t understand it.

<<If someone who clearly had scientific qualifications superior to mine told me that I didn’t understand science, then I’d have to accept that, I’d cop it on the chin. However, I don’t think that person is you [David f].>>

It doesn’t matter that David f has no scientific qualifications. What does matter is that 99.9% of scientists would agree with him. Just as it doesn't matter that I have no formal scientific qualifications, what matters is that 99.9% of scientists would agree with what I’ve been telling you. After all, they are who I get my information from.

Now that I’ve pointed this out to you, I trust that you can cop it on the chin.

I hope I can also take your lack of response to all my other points as a concession that they were right. They do need closure after all. It would be most unhelpful if we were to just forget about them and have you repeat the same mistakes.

AJ,
I remember in the early days of mobile phones we used to joke about the paradox of the mobile phone. “Anyone who is so important that they need to have one shouldn’t be so easily accessible”.

It reminds me of the AJ Philips paradox. If my posts are so bad that you hold me in such contempt, why do you ALWAYS follow them up with one (often two) of your own with such urgency?

Ought I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of science, or be encouraged that someone wants to attach themselves to me closer than a groupie?

So you now say 99.9% of scientists agree with you. Wow! What an impressive number! With your superior scientific understanding, earlier you were trying to explain the ‘numbers fallacy’ to me. Can you or Davidf remind me, just how many scientists have to vote a certain way before something is considered an established fact or truth?

DSM

I would be fascinated to know your explanation for the fossil of a sea-water fish (an extremely large shark) discovered in Kansas recently. I suppose god put it there just to confuse scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8530000/8530995.stm

<<< It may even have been the largest shellfish-eating animal ever to have roamed the Earth.

Dr Kenshu Shimada of DePaul university in Chicago, Illinois, US found the fossilized remains of the shark in rocks known as the Fort Hays Limestone in Kansas. >>>

Dan,

I’m making a conscious effort to not get too smart-alecky. I ask that you do the same.

<<It reminds me of the AJ Philips paradox. If my posts are so bad that you hold me in such contempt, why do you ALWAYS follow them up with one (often two) of your own with such urgency?>>

I don’t hold you in contempt. I think you use some, shall we say, less-than-honest tactics as a mechanism to maintain a belief for which there is no evidence. But that’s about it.

I respond with “such urgency” because I enjoy our discussions and because what you say is often so horribly wrong that I believe a prompt correction is important.

The reason my responses usually span over two posts, is because I need to fit your posts in mine to do line-by-line rebuttals. Line-by-line rebuttals are important when dealing with Creationists so as to not miss a single point. The reason each and every point needs to be covered is because you could disprove 99% of what a Creationist says, and they’ll still point to the 1% that went unmentioned. Such is the psychology behind the fundamentalist mindset; a mindset that I have first-hand experience with myself.

On another note, please remember that reverse psychology doesn’t work...

<<Ought I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of science, or be encouraged that someone wants to attach themselves to me closer than a groupie?>>

But if the attention you receive from me makes you feel somehow special, then that can only be a good thing. I’m here to make corrections, not to make you feel bad.

<<So you now say 99.9% of scientists agree with you. Wow! What an impressive number!>>

That it is Dan, that it is. But it’s not the percentage that matters, as I will now illustrate...

<<With your superior scientific understanding, earlier you were trying to explain the ‘numbers fallacy’ to me.>>

Ignoring your snide sarcasm, I threw in the percentage to see if you’d take the bait, and you did - hook, line and sinker.

Continued...

...Continued

This here jaw of mine ain't made of glass, it's reinforced with evidence and reason, as I will now demonstrate...

<<Can you or Davidf remind me, just how many scientists have to vote a certain way before something is considered an established fact or truth?>>

It matters not what the percentage is, Dan. What matters is that the 99.9% of scientists I refer to adhere to the scientific method. The other 0.1% abandon the scientific method for a Statement of Faith.

That 99.9% could be a mere 1% and my point would still stand; hence why numbers can be a fallacy. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give an example.

Unfortunately though, your second shot at catching me out using a fallacy has failed as well. Who knows, it might be a case of ‘third time lucky’.

But rather than continuously dodging and weaving (as you have done here once again), we need to focus on the issues raised. By running around the place as your dodging and weaving leads us here there and everywhere, we run the risk of you repeating an already discredited (often multiple times) argument. We can’t just keep covering the same points over-and-over again. We’re going to need some retractions of the points you’re called up on but cannot support.

It’s counter-productive for you to simply pretend that something didn’t happen and move on to another point. Although I can fully appreciate that this is a mechanism you probably use to maintain your belief.

Severin,

Interesting find there. It reminds me of the Creation museum in Kentucky, which is sitting on an ancient coral reef that debunks it (http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/Creation-Museum-debunked-by-f)

Oh the irony!

Creationists try to explain fossil finds like that with the alleged Biblical flood. Just as they use the flood to explain the Grand Canyon. What’s even worse though, is that they explain the order of the fossil finds in the strata with the creature’s ability to escape rising waters.

And these people want to be taken seriously within the scientific community.

Amazing!

AJ,
I think you’ve slightly misinterpreted the goals of the creationist movement.

You say they want to be taken seriously by the scientific community. This is not their primary goal. If they were looking to find favour amongst the scientific institutions, then they would be keen to fall in line with the popular theories of the day.

Evolutionary materialism dominates thinking in regards to origins in most education systems at all levels as well as the mass media. Creationists aim to present an alternative view of God as creator, as revealed in the Scriptures and consistent with the Christian faith. This includes the real history of the world as recounted in Genesis.

Creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists. That is why the leading creationist scientists in Australia have stated that they are not afraid to publically debate the issues with evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins when he comes to Mebourne this month, and in fact invited such a challenge.

In regards to being taken seriously by the scientific community, I would estimate that creationists already are. Just look at the current aggression aimed at creationists by authors such as Dawkins and others

AJ Phillips

I had no idea that the mockery of science - the Creation Museum was situated over an ancient coral reef. Although when one considers the massive changes to the planet over the millenniums, no matter where a building is situated it will be over ancient strata.

DSM

If it is not the denial of evidence and rational thinking in order to treat the bible as literal, then what is the goal of creationists?

Severin,
What is the goal of creationists? I thought I just answered that question. Do you want to read it again?

Creationists are not in denial of anything. What would be the point? The evidence is out there for anyone to see.

If some evidence seems contrary to our view, then so be it. All views have problems. That’s normal in science. Evolutionists have problems with their theories. Millions of dollars of tax payers’ money goes to trying to iron out these problems.

As I just said, creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists (in regard to which position better aligns with the empirical evidence). That is why the leading creationist scientists in Australia have stated that they are not afraid to publically debate the issues with evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins when he comes to Melbourne this month, and in fact invited such a challenge.

Dan,

Thanks for your response. It was a classic example of the insinuation and sleight-of-hand that was mentioned in another thread.

Obviously, when I said that Creationists want to be taken seriously, I meant their ideas first and foremost. Your response was to make it appear as though I meant them personally - as if they were seeking acceptance as a person regardless of their ideas...

<<If [creationists] were looking to find favour amongst the scientific institutions, then they would be keen to fall in line with the popular theories of the day.>>

Very slick!

<<Evolutionary materialism dominates thinking in regards to origins...>>

Ahh, yes, but it’s important to remember that it doesn’t “dominate thinking” in the intelligentsia Freud/Marx sense as it is not a social science.

Of course, you didn’t directly say this... no. You insinuated it so that if I mentioned Marx, Freud or social sciences, you could then come back as say you never mentioned them - forcing me to take some of the responsibility.

Again, very slick!

<<Creationists aim to present an alternative view of God as creator. This includes the real history of the world as recounted in Genesis.>>

You mean the book of the Bible with the talking, legged snaked? I’m presuming it had legs, otherwise “Ye shall crawl on your belly for the rest of your days” wouldn’t be much of a punishment now, would it?

So long as Creationists want to blame death and disease and everything bad in nature on the fact that some fruit was eaten in a magical garden 6000 years ago, they will have to be content with being resigned to the loony bin I’m afraid, Dan.

<<Creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists.>>

Unfortunately, they don’t withstand the challenges. This is evident in your reluctance and/or inability to back your claims when I request more information, and that your contributions to discussions on this topic rely on trickery.

Trickery that would could possibly give a naïve audience the false impression that the debate hadn’t yet been settled...

Continued...

...Continued

<<That is why the leading creationist scientists in Australia have stated that they are not afraid to publically debate the issues...>>

After all, when they have no evidence, illusions are all they can rely on.

<<In regards to being taken seriously by the scientific community, I would estimate that creationists already are.>>

This is another example of the sleight-of-hand.

I meant “want to be taken seriously” as in having their ideas respected. You knew this but you changed the context of the word “seriously”.

If you want a productive discussion, then you need to stop broadening and narrowing definitions to suit your own means and misrepresent others.

You know very well that Creationists are taken seriously only in the sense that they are a danger to science and reason.

They insidiously attempt to infiltrate school science rooms with deceit and trickery rather than going through to proper channels of research and peer review.

<<Creationists are not in denial of anything.>>

I refer to no. 6 under “General” at http://creation.com/what-we-believe.

<<What would be the point?>>

Maintaining a religious belief they’re emotionally dependant on.

<<The evidence is out there for anyone to see.>>

And yet you still can’t point me to one little bit of it that proves, or even supports Creationism.

<<If some evidence seems contrary to our view, then so be it. All views have problems. Evolutionists have problems with their theories.>>

Since the alleged problem of evolution apparently only being a theory of history didn’t withstand my criticism, can you think of another?

Surely you can, considering you make these alleged problems sound so detrimental.

<<Millions of dollars of tax payers’ money goes to trying to iron out these problems.>>

Can you give an example? If not, could you please retract the statement?

<<...creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists (in regard to which position better aligns with the empirical evidence).>>

So how does this empirical evidence suggest design or a creator without resorting to the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy or the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy?

Thanks.

DSM,

You say "Evolutionists have problems with their theories"

No they don't. Creationists have problems with the theory, but cannot define why.

Creationists cannot convince any court or scientific institution that their views hold any merit at all.

Dawkins does not hold creationists in any high regard and lumps them with the flat earthers, alien abducties etc. The issue has been resolved, and the world has moved on.

>> Creationists are not in denial of anything.

hilarious. they're even in denial of their denial.