Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Xeluan · 08-08-2002, 09:01 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pangloss:

I agree that it is difficult to be completely objective in this debate. Clearly, one side has a harder time at it - they have a belief system to protect, their salvations is at stake, and they all seem to have that psychosis that makes them think they are right about everything![/qoute]

True. If there was good evidence that current ToE was flawed then I'd have no trouble accepting a new version. Indeed, Darwin was wrong about a few things and ToE has been modified quite a lot over the past 150 years.

I think the fact that typically the evolutionist can/will supply verifiable documentation for their statements, as opposed to repeated assertions, or links to creationist websites, etc., makes the evolutionist position far more objective overall than the creatonists (thats my bias, of ocurse!). 

I add to say that evolutionists tend to construct arguments that show analysis of the literature/evidence presented. Creationists and IDers (such as Roland Hirsch) tend to just throw out a quote or story (usualy misreading the intent) and say that is disproves Darwinism (whatever that is) without any critical analysis. I think their approach is that is if they say "Darwinism is in trouble" enough time it must come true.

I also agree that evolutionists by and large are a bit more conversant with the 'enemy's' works, if only from popular books and magazines. 

About 8 years ago I attended a meeting at a local church where the Creation Bus that roams Australia was meeting. I left with a few of the great creationist books by Morris and others. Since then if I come across a copy of the latest popular anti-evolutionary screed I'll but it. The latest was Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." I found that one hard to read. Not because Behe's arguments are complex but the constant, silly little sniping attacks on science. It was almost too much.

Anyway - I think it was my reading of creationist articles, websites, and books that have jaded me towards all creationst authors. I have yet to find a single example of one that does not almost immediately resort to distortion, aspersion casting, misrepresentation, and hyperbole.

Creationists have really honed the art of rhetoric. The ID movement learnt that lesson real quick. They play the political game well and as politcal style arguments rely little on actual content but rather emotions they are harder to rebuke.

Have you?

Yes..maybe...I'm sure there was one...eerrrrmmm....no actually.

Xeluan

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]

Principia · 08-25-2002, 09:59 AM

From <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000285;p=2" target="_blank">RFH</a>:

Quote:

nic:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, they *can* coexist, since certain versions of ID allow that evolution has had remarkable scope in biological history, except for a few almost unbelievably ancient events. However, as a practical matter, I've just quoted from the concluding chapter of one of the top books of the ID movement, which directly demonstrates exactly the danger that RBH and others have raised in the thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is good to see this recognition that the critics of Darwinian evolutionary theories are not critics of evolutionary theory. The two are different things entirely. Indeed critics of Darwinism have in fact come up with useful additions to evolutionary theory.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[from Wells�s book:] Agriculture has also been quite successful without help from Darwinism. Of course, the domestic breeding of crops and livestock is important, but agricultural science was around long before Darwin. Even when it comes to pesticide resistance, farmers (like physicians) deal with problems pragmatically, on a case-by-case basis. Ironically, despite the Darwinists' insistence that nothing in agriculture makes sense without them, they were handed their greatest defeat in recent years by the State of Kansas -- home of some of the most successful farmers in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also ironically, the "case-by-case" method is what led to the massive pesticide resistance we see today, leading to the use of more and more pesticides (polluting, unhealthy, and more expensive) or newly-developed, more expensive pesticides (ditto) or genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops that can out-tolerate, for a while, the increasingly herbicide-resistant weeds (ditto ditto), all despite diminishing returns. The irony of the Kansas remark goes without saying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact the �official� Darwinian establishment would disagree with you here. You only have to check the National Academies� 1998 book on teaching of evolution, where a section on pesticide resistance ends with an exercise asking the class to explain why, after using pesticide A the first year to reduce the number of flies around cows, and finding resistance building up, the ag department suggests Pesticide B the second summer, then pesticide C the third summer, and then back to using pesticide A in the fourth summer. The anti-Darwinian fact is that the flies that are resistant to pesticide A are NOT more fit, as this strain dies out when pesticide A is no longer around.

Principia:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�Somewhere in high school in this country is a student who�s going to cure AIDS,� Palumbi says. �That student is going to have to understand evolution.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- U.S. News and World Report, 29 July 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key point is that this expert did NOT say � � have to understand Darwinian evolution.� Indeed design is the principal means available to medical science for developing treatments of AIDS. [SC: ROFLMAO]

aptamer:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you clarify what you mean by this? And let me assure you that we use evolution theory a whole lot more than armchair philosophers do. may I suggest a short visit to Pubmed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. Evolutionary theory, but not Darwinian evolutionary theory.

nic:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RFH:
Design in fact is the primary weapon used by life scientists developing new means to prevent and treat these diseases. Study of the design of the anthrax lethal factor is a perfect example.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll agree that anthrax lethal factor is a classic "IC" system, and therefore mainstream ID logic says it was designed -- which makes for an interesting paradox, as mainstream ID also says that the human immune system was designed, so we've got another instance of warring designs -- but do you seriously think that many biomed types really consider the anthrax toxin to be intelligently designed? That they are fighting a mind that is trying to kill them?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said �design�, you say �intelligent design�. I tried to be particular in my choice of words. I did not imply intelligent design, rather taking note in what I thought was straightforward language of the fact that life scientists do use design as a fundamental concept in studying infectious diseases, and in general in studying the protein machines that we now recognize perform the functions of living cells.

Just as there is a distinction between �evolutionary theory� and �Darwinian evolutionary theory�, so there is a distinction between �design� and �intelligent design�. It would help to keep these distinctions in mind and select the appropriate phrases for a given context.

How do people say this crap with a straight face?

pangloss · 08-26-2002, 05:02 AM

Distinction between "design" and "intelligent design"?

Pardon my Pig Latin, but what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

And what is the difference between 'evolution' and 'Darwinian evolution'? I mean, I KNOW what the difference is, but IDiots like Roland Hirsch have conflated all aspects of evolution so much that there seems to be no distinction at all...

To them, anyway...

08-08-2002, 09:01 PM	#11
Xeluan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Some Pub In East Gosford, Australia Posts: 831	[QUOTE]Originally posted by pangloss: <strong> I agree that it is difficult to be completely objective in this debate. Clearly, one side has a harder time at it - they have a belief system to protect, their salvations is at stake, and they all seem to have that psychosis that makes them think they are right about everything!</strong>[/qoute] True. If there was good evidence that current ToE was flawed then I'd have no trouble accepting a new version. Indeed, Darwin was wrong about a few things and ToE has been modified quite a lot over the past 150 years. <strong>I think the fact that typically the evolutionist can/will supply verifiable documentation for their statements, as opposed to repeated assertions, or links to creationist websites, etc., makes the evolutionist position far more objective overall than the creatonists (thats my bias, of ocurse!). </strong> I add to say that evolutionists tend to construct arguments that show analysis of the literature/evidence presented. Creationists and IDers (such as Roland Hirsch) tend to just throw out a quote or story (usualy misreading the intent) and say that is disproves Darwinism (whatever that is) without any critical analysis. I think their approach is that is if they say "Darwinism is in trouble" enough time it must come true. <strong>I also agree that evolutionists by and large are a bit more conversant with the 'enemy's' works, if only from popular books and magazines. </strong> About 8 years ago I attended a meeting at a local church where the Creation Bus that roams Australia was meeting. I left with a few of the great creationist books by Morris and others. Since then if I come across a copy of the latest popular anti-evolutionary screed I'll but it. The latest was Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." I found that one hard to read. Not because Behe's arguments are complex but the constant, silly little sniping attacks on science. It was almost too much. <strong>Anyway - I think it was my reading of creationist articles, websites, and books that have jaded me towards all creationst authors. I have yet to find a single example of one that does not almost immediately resort to distortion, aspersion casting, misrepresentation, and hyperbole.</strong> Creationists have really honed the art of rhetoric. The ID movement learnt that lesson real quick. They play the political game well and as politcal style arguments rely little on actual content but rather emotions they are harder to rebuke. <strong>Have you?</strong> Yes..maybe...I'm sure there was one...eerrrrmmm....no actually. Xeluan [ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-26-2002, 05:02 AM	#13
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Distinction between "design" and "intelligent design"? Pardon my Pig Latin, but what the fuck is that supposed to mean? And what is the difference between 'evolution' and 'Darwinian evolution'? I mean, I KNOW what the difference is, but IDiots like Roland Hirsch have conflated all aspects of evolution so much that there seems to be no distinction at all... To them, anyway...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.