Queen of Swords

No shit, Sherlock. Just water, gases, geothermal vents, electricity in the form of lightning, and 4.5 billion years. No NIH grants or white coats, though. Ergo, no biogenesis. Let me <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

gravitybow

Oolon Colluphid says:
I’m particularly, er, surprised by the inclusion of Douglas Futuyma’s quote:

Hey, Oolon. I'm sure you won't be surprised to see how the original material has been truncated to end in midsentence on "omnipotent intelligence." Here is the complete quote as it appears in my copy of Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. The part that was left out is in boldface:
Futuyma then proceeds to lay out evidence of that history. BTW, the quote above is the complete opening paragraph in chapter 11 titled The Case for Evolution.

And this kind of butchery is what passes for scholarship in creationist circles.

MarcoPolo

The part I'm questioning is the 'bear within them no evidence of a former history.'

First of all, I assume 'former history' is different than 'previous,' or 'past' history? History is history isn't it?

Anyways, to the meat of my question.

How can you even make that statement? How do you know something has a history if all you see is that one thing? Take a baby animal of some kind. Without looking at that babies parents, their parents, and their parents, and so on, what evidences are there for a 'former history?'

I'm just questioning the vailidity of such a statement. We don't know for a fact that a creature created by a designer isn't designed to look old, so the statement is just conjecture. Right?

Not arguing one way or the other, just trying to point out why I think it's a bad quote for either side to use.

Thoughts?

gravitybow

Thoughts?

Ah, Marco, now you're beginning to see why the quote was mangled in the first place, aren't you? It raises so many "nasty" questions, doesn't it? Unless of course you amputate the offending material to make it palatable to creationist sensibilities, and then include it in a laundry list of scientific quotes. You didn't question the validity of the statement until the remaining text was restored.

Thoughts? How about actually reading the source material written by scientists in the field? For starters, how about actually reading Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution? That wouldn't be too challenging, would it?

MarcoPolo

Yes. It was a very bad job of quoting.

It does? What are some of the 'many' questions it raises.

Agreed.

Thanks Sherlock. Here's a tip: quit trying to build a straw man to knock down.

I never reacted to either until I read the entire thread. It does show you how the creationist can be misled though, doesn't it? I mean, if we trust what other people tell us without researching it ourselves, it can often lead to misunderstanding.

Luckily, I read the entire thread before reacting to it. One part of the full quote stood out to me and I commented on that.

Apparently you think I support the creationist? Well, you're wrong. I support facts and science. Not conjecture and guessing. Which is what I commented on. You did READ what I wrote?

So now I have to read the entire thing to be able to comment on it? Wow... you're good at this. Deflect the issue by claiming I don't know what I'm talking about.

Here's the quote again, and this time I'll break it down for you.

Good start, no comment yet.

Would? How do we know this? Science can't prove that? It's a guess. Unless of course he has created a species out of nothing and actually found it out.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: MarcoPolo ]</p>

gravitybow

An apology, Marco. After having taken a few moments to review some of your previous posts, I see that you are not really a creationist after all, although that was the distinct impression I got when I first read your post.
So let me respond, without rancor, to some of the points you raised:

The first point is your "meat of my question" passage:
This sounds 100% creation science to me. It's looking at the one quote as if it were the sum total of the argument, which it isn't. In this case, Futuyma's statement is the introduction to the argument he lays out in chapter 11 of his book. It is an "if-then" proposition that indicates the material he is going to cover. The validity does not reside within this opening paragraph, but rather in the arguments he puts forth in the following chapter to support it. So, when you said, "the statement is just conjecture," you inadvertently reinforced my conception of Marco=creationist, since you also poohed the idea of reading Science on Trial, or at least the relevant chapter, where Futuyma argues, "the statement is supported."

Agreed. But I don't see this as ever being any kind of useful quote for evos to use, especially since it is only the thesis for chapter ll, The Case for Evolution.

On the other hand, when the last part was lopped off, it provided a nifty quote ending in "they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence," which sounds like some sort of affirmation from Futuyma, and it allowed them to add Futuyma to their stockpile of notables, leaving the impression that he somehow supports the creationist cause.

To clarify, I mean that the restored text raises so many nasty questions, questions that are impossible to form in the pared version, questions that interrupt the flow of the feel-good-creationist-vibe going on in the listed quotes, questions that cause one reading the list to come to a screeching halt and ask, "What the hell is that quote doing here?" You know, creationist-like questions such as:
That's why I initially believed you to be a creationist.


OK, not "you" personally. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in how I worded this, Marco. I didn't mean this to come across as hard as it sounded. Building a strawman was not my intent. It would have been better had I said "One is not capable of questioning the validity of the statement until the remaining text is restored," because, really, there is nothing for a creationist to question in the feel-good version of the quote. And I see that your questions genuinely arise from seeing the new material, and not as a "hey, wait a minute!" knee-jerk reaction we've come to expect. But the nature of the questions you ask don't sound very scientific to me.

And you also lose 3 "cool points" by using "sherlock" in the same thread as QueenofSwords.

We may have a differing view of creation science, Marco. To be a creationist IS to be misled, even misleading. Scientifically, it is a completely dishonest endeavor. There is not a single branch of science that doesn't have to be sliced, diced, and pureed to create that concoction known as creation science. Creationism doesn't "often" lead to misunderstanding, it paves the way with no off ramps. Perhaps we are in agreement here?

Yes, and after rereading your first post, it still sounds very creationist-like to me. However, I'm glad to see that you "support facts and science. Not conjecture and guessing." I even see that (on another thread) you like to watch science programs with your kids and have discussions afterward.

OK, then: might I politely suggest that you consider reading just Chapter 11 of Science on Trial? Not the whole book, mind you. To quote the words of one MarcoPolo, "If we trust what other people tell us without researching it ourselves, it can often lead to misunderstanding," and "I support facts and science. Not conjecture and guessing."

The Futuyma quote is not the end-all of Futuyma's argument. No. He presents an entire chapter to lay out his argument to the thesis restored in the quote. So, how can one rightly challenge what Futuyma is talking about in a limited quote, but refuse to consult the primary source where he attempts to answer the question? I would be inclined to say that such a person doesn't know what they're talking about and is pretty much engaging in "conjecture and guessing." And I would offer an invitation to the true researcher to get the facts for himself from the book, the same as I surmise MarcoPolo would do.

Agreed?

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

MarcoPolo

And I apologize as well. Especially to a fellow Texan. We could have met for lunch we're so close.

I know I sometimes come off that way. I think I feel sorry for downtrodden creationists and feel like they need someone on their side that can at least understand why they're being misunderstood. Usually they'll just get a bunch of immature 'cretinist' and 'you're an idiot' posts here. This site isn't good for real debating. Any creationist that wants to try and make a point will just be laughed out or ridiculed away.

No need.

Agreed and I'll try and find the book to read it.

tgamble

I suppsoe it's a guess based on the assumption that god wouldn't create a false history that would deceive people.

Do you think God is that deceptive?

trebor

gravity, I find it interesting that you respond to the same text of Marco differently based simply on the preconceived idea that you had concerning him. BTW, I hope you don't mind my truncation of your post.

Kevin Dorner

I would hope that children have better things to do in science class than learn about how pseudoscientific mysticism tries to displace scientific progress of the understanding of the world. Heck, this would be rather like being assigned to write about the Flat-Earthers for geography class.

I'd be willing to argue (maybe even in a court) that assigning a rather impressionable young person to do a report on the (in this context non-existent) creation/evolution debate is an unconstitutional promotion of creationism, a la "equal time." It might convince children that scientific progress is brought on by debate, or that there is something worth debating about.

So, assign learning about evolution, from properly reviewed textbooks and library books; I wouldn't assign children any assignment that required them to use the internet as a source of factual information for a subject for which thousands of locations exist for the sole purpose of promoting what are no better than lies.