Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bloodroot · 04-22-2003, 10:04 AM

Here's the response I have written so far for the Greenville News Editorial. You probably can tell that I used some bits and pieces from Talkorigins.org specifically the Evolution and Philosophy written by John Wilkins. What do you guys think? Is this absolute shit that I just wrote? Input would be greatly appreciated.

Contrary to a past response, I must applaud the president of the National Science Teachers Association for appropriately dismissing creationism as having "little value in increasing student's knowledge of the natural world". As far as the NSTA being "closed minded to legitimate scientific discussion", the author, unintentionally I hope, overlooked a key word: legitimate. As stated by the state science consultant for the South Carolina Department of Education, "...all of science rides on evidence", not just any evidence but evidence of an empirical kind. According to Wilkins at Talk.Origins.org, science, via naturalism, cannot make the assumption that phenomena are themselves nonnatural and must also avoid non-natural explanations in order for it to be legit. Most importantly, explanations MUST be testable, any explanation using non-natural explanations FAILS to be testable; therefore is non-scientific. Creationism adheres to supernaturalism and like the pink unicorn cannot be proven, or most importantly, disproved. With this in mind, creationism serves no purpose but a slap in the face when given the "balanced treatment".

RBH · 04-22-2003, 10:14 AM

DD wrote

Quote:

Not by me. Heresay on my part, I'm afraid. I generally ignore the activities of creationist organisations. There are more pleasant things to do with my time, like scratching my eyes out.

I vaguely recall a thread about this not so long ago, possibly one of the progect steve threads, where I heard about that. I'll have a quick search.

Please do. I'm currently embroiled in opposing an effort to get the IDNet "teach the controversy" policy adopted by the local school board, and I need all the ammunition I can get. I am aware of the DI bibliography fiasco. I am also aware of the slipperiness of the wording of the DI 100 statement and of the statements signed by "scientistst" in Ohio and Georgia. I was really hoping that there was documentation of reservations or even withdrawals by some of the signers. Ah, well.

RBH

ruby-soho · 04-22-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloodroot
Here's the response I have written so far for the Greenville News Editorial. You probably can tell that I used some bits and pieces from Talkorigins.org specifically the Evolution and Philosophy written by John Wilkins. What do you guys think? Is this absolute shit that I just wrote? Input would be greatly appreciated.

Contrary to a past response, I must applaud the president of the National Science Teachers Association for appropriately dismissing creationism as having "little value in increasing student's knowledge of the natural world". As far as the NSTA being "closed minded to legitimate scientific discussion", the author, unintentionally I hope, overlooked a key word: legitimate. As stated by the state science consultant for the South Carolina Department of Education, "...all of science rides on evidence", not just any evidence but evidence of an empirical kind. According to Wilkins at Talk.Origins.org, science, via naturalism, cannot make the assumption that phenomena are themselves nonnatural and must also avoid non-natural explanations in order for it to be legit. Most importantly, explanations MUST be testable, any explanation using non-natural explanations FAILS to be testable; therefore is non-scientific. Creationism adheres to supernaturalism and like the pink unicorn cannot be proven, or most importantly, disproved. With this in mind, creationism serves no purpose but a slap in the face when given the "balanced treatment".

Just a couple of humble suggestions - I'd replace the word "legit" with, "legitimate." This sentence, Creationism adheres to supernaturalism and like the pink unicorn cannot be proven, or most importantly, disproved., I would suggest restating so: "Creationism adheres to supernaturalism and like the pink unicorn cannot be empirically tested, or most importantly, falsified." I'd stay away from terms such as "prove" and/or "disprove" because science doesn't deal with "proof".

Other than those two minor things, it sounds good to me!

My two cents worth,

D

Dr.GH · 04-22-2003, 12:25 PM

Who the hell is Dix?

From the Greenfield Times article cited above:

Quote:

Daniel Dix, a math professor at the University of South Carolina, said his studies of the structure of biological molecules lead him to be skeptical that natural selection and random mutation alone can account for the "sophisticated networks" of "complex molecular machines" he sees.

"These just look to me like the kind of things you see when you look in engineering systems," he said.

He is particularly amazed by the molecular "antennas" in the photosynthetic cells of plants, which can be tuned to receive light of different frequencies, and even disassemble and reassemble themselves if they need to be repaired.

Dix said he doesn't see any evidence that such sophisticated systems can "spontaneously arise."

"You start piling implausibility upon implausibility, and after a while the argument gets harder and harder to believe that all this happened without any kind of mind behind it," Dix said.

His Webpage at the University of S. Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~dix/

5,000 year-old-wood in 600 millions year old sediment (Joseph Henson, chairman emeritus of Bob Jones University's division of natural science) is just too much to stomache right now.

KC · 04-22-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr.GH
Who the hell is Dix?

What is it with these damned mathematicians?

Quote:

Dix said he doesn't see any evidence that such sophisticated systems can "spontaneously arise."

Neither do evolutionary biologists, you inane twit.

KC

Principia · 04-22-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

What is it with these damned mathematicians?

Oh look at who else is on the faculty there:

Code:

[...]
Matthew Miller........Prof..............777-3690..300I.......miller@math.sc.edu
Robert Murphy.........Lecturer..........777-4713..400H.......murphy@math.sc.edu 
Charles Nicol.........Emerit Prof.......777-3184..300F.......nicol@math.sc.edu
Peter Nyikos..........Prof..............777-5134..406........nyikos@math.sc.edu
Mary Ellen O'Leary....Sr Instr..........777-4303..402........oleary@math.sc.edu
Konstantin Oskolkov...Prof..............777-3776..421........oskolkov@math.sc.edu
Pencho Petrushev......Prof..............777-6686..424........pencho@math.sc.edu
James Roberts.........Prof..............777-6623..309C.......roberts@math.sc.edu
[...]

Birds of a feather...

Principia · 04-22-2003, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Bloodroot: ... According to Wilkins at Talk.Origins.org, science, via naturalism, cannot make the assumption that phenomena are themselves nonnatural and must also avoid non-natural explanations in order for it to be legit.

I'd replace naturalism with methodological naturalism or scientific method. And maybe you can replace the Wilkins reference with any one of a number of readily accessible books/journals he cites here.

Will you let us see the final draft before you ship it out?

Defiant Heretic · 04-22-2003, 01:45 PM

Be sure to mention that the bible mentions how the sun revolves around the flat earth after it mentions creation.

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." - Isaiah

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." -Revelation 7:1

"Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land." - Ezekiel 7:1

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." - Joshua 10:13

"The sun [and] moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, [and] at the shining of thy glittering spear." -Habakkuk 3:11

Albion · 04-22-2003, 02:50 PM

Quote:

I'm currently embroiled in opposing an effort to get the IDNet "teach the controversy" policy adopted by the local school board, and I need all the ammunition I can get. I am aware of the DI bibliography fiasco. I am also aware of the slipperiness of the wording of the DI 100 statement and of the statements signed by "scientistst" in Ohio and Georgia. I was really hoping that there was documentation of reservations or even withdrawals by some of the signers. Ah, well.

The NCSE article S2Focus linked to did say that NCSE had contacted the scientists in the DI list and briefly discussed some of the responses. At the bottom of the article it said to contact Skip Evans for more information, so you might want to drop him an e-mail and see if NCSE has a compilation of responses that you could use in your campaign.

RBH · 04-22-2003, 07:30 PM

Albion,

Thanks. I've been in semi-regular contact with Skip, and if he has 'em and didn't tell me I'll jump up and down on his head for not volunteering it!

Seriously, NCSE has been a big help, and I'll call Skip tomorrow. Thanks!

RBH

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

04-22-2003, 10:04 AM	#11
Bloodroot Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: upstate SC Posts: 20	Here's the response I have written so far for the Greenville News Editorial. You probably can tell that I used some bits and pieces from Talkorigins.org specifically the Evolution and Philosophy written by John Wilkins. What do you guys think? Is this absolute shit that I just wrote? Input would be greatly appreciated. Contrary to a past response, I must applaud the president of the National Science Teachers Association for appropriately dismissing creationism as having "little value in increasing student's knowledge of the natural world". As far as the NSTA being "closed minded to legitimate scientific discussion", the author, unintentionally I hope, overlooked a key word: legitimate. As stated by the state science consultant for the South Carolina Department of Education, "...all of science rides on evidence", not just any evidence but evidence of an empirical kind. According to Wilkins at Talk.Origins.org, science, via naturalism, cannot make the assumption that phenomena are themselves nonnatural and must also avoid non-natural explanations in order for it to be legit. Most importantly, explanations MUST be testable, any explanation using non-natural explanations FAILS to be testable; therefore is non-scientific. Creationism adheres to supernaturalism and like the pink unicorn cannot be proven, or most importantly, disproved. With this in mind, creationism serves no purpose but a slap in the face when given the "balanced treatment".

04-22-2003, 01:45 PM	#18
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	Be sure to mention that the bible mentions how the sun revolves around the flat earth after it mentions creation. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." - Isaiah "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." -Revelation 7:1 "Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land." - Ezekiel 7:1 "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." - Joshua 10:13 "The sun [and] moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, [and] at the shining of thy glittering spear." -Habakkuk 3:11

04-22-2003, 07:30 PM	#20
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Albion, Thanks. I've been in semi-regular contact with Skip, and if he has 'em and didn't tell me I'll jump up and down on his head for not volunteering it! Seriously, NCSE has been a big help, and I'll call Skip tomorrow. Thanks! RBH

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.