Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Guts · 07-19-2003, 03:59 PM

BioBeing wrote:

Quote:

[Quoting Press Release] "Raymond G. Bohlin [...] has published numerous journal articles..."

None of which are listed in Pubmed

None of them are listed in Pubmed because it looks like citations for Journal of Mammalogy don't go past1980 Dr. Bohlin published a paper in this journal after 1980, so it doesn't show up in Pubmed.

They also don't seem to list any citations for the journal: J. Thermal Biology which he also published a paper for.

Guts · 07-19-2003, 04:30 PM

Theyeti,

Check out the things that CNN says that is completely false:

Quote:

Today, Texas educators are debating which biology books will be used in the future and that ignites the debate of evolution versus creationism, or intelligent design as some now call it.

Intelligent design is not creationism.

Quote:

If we put intelligent design into our biology textbooks based on the misrepresentation of real scientific fact, and the conjecture that its proponents rely on, then we may as well add the study of flying saucers and aliens from outer space to our biology and physics book.

But who is attempting to put intelligent design into Biology textbooks, what does showing that moths actually don't normally rest on tree trunks have to do with the hypothesis that design of life may exist?

Quote:

COOPER: OK, Brian, we got a couple examples we want to put on the screen to show the audience what we're talking about. This one is from a change made last year in a 6th grade social studies book. Now initially the text read, "Glaciers formed the Great Lakes millions of years ago". Then it was edited to read, "Glaciers formed the Great Lakes in the distant past." Why was "millions of years" switched to "distant past"?

LEITER: Well, I believe it was deleted because it conflicts with Biblical timelines. Even though the evidence that the glaciers formed millions of years ago is undisputed by scientists.

Glaciers in the distant past? Conflicts with Biblical timelines? What the hell does that have to do with what the DI was talking about?

Quote:

COOPER: OK, let's show another example here. This is -- the publisher agreed to delete this line, "Christians would later accept slavery in other contexts" this was from Prentice Hall Publisher. Now I guess someone argued this is a softening of the history on slavery?

LEITER: Well, I think the objection to it was actually different, which is that it reflected badly on Christianity. Though, the unfortunate fact about the history of the western world, is that many Christian nations accepted slavery for a very long time. President Bush has recently been talking about that unfortunate and shameful aspect of our past.

I don't know if someone actually did want these changes, but this has nothing to do with what the Bohlin was there for. Bohlin submitted the views of about a hundred scientists, and the issue was problems with neo-Darwinian evolution.

GunnerJ · 07-19-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Intelligent design is not creationism.

*snort*

RufusAtticus · 07-19-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Intelligent design is not creationism.

Depends on how you define creationism.

Quote:

But who is attempting to put intelligent design into Biology textbooks, what does showing that moths actually don't normally rest on tree trunks have to do with the hypothesis that design of life may exist?

Actually that's not the question that you need to ask. What you should be wondering is how criticising text-book illustrations amounts to a critique of evolution theory. Idist claim that they want evidence against darwinism also included in the ciruculum, but the best they can do is complain about a pair of pictures? I don't think these people even understand what kind of support that modern biology has behind it.

Quote:

Bohlin submitted the views of about a hundred scientists, and the issue was problems with neo-Darwinian evolution.

How many of them were named Steve? More specifically, how many of them were biologists? How many of them had scientific problems with modern biology instead of theological or philosophical problems? I'm sure I can find more biologists who have views about the problems with the theory of gravity than one can find physicists who have problems with evolution.

Guts · 07-19-2003, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Depends on how you define creationism.

Evolution can be creationism if you define it so plastically. However, the context for which ID is usualy called creationism is incorrect. ID does not conduct investigations using a Biblical framework.

Quote:

Actually that's not the question that you need to ask. What you should be wondering is how criticising text-book illustrations amounts to a critique of evolution theory.

This is not just critiquing textbook illustrations. This is critiquing the Kettlewell experiment. He used artificial conditions and the experiment should not be presented in textbooks as evidence for evolution.

Quote:

How many of them were named Steve?

Irrelevant.

Quote:

More specifically, how many of them were biologists? How many of them had scientific problems with modern biology instead of theological or philosophical problems? I'm sure I can find more biologists who have views about the problems with the theory of gravity than one can find physicists who have problems with evolution.

A lot of them are Biologists, and they all signed a statement to the effect that there problem is with neo-Darwinism, not philosophical or theological. They are not convinced that natural selection and random mutation would likely produce the complexity we see in Biology. Here's a couple:

Russell W. Carlson: University of Georgia: Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Technical Director of
the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Leon L. Combs: Kennesaw State University: Professor and Chair, Chemistry and Biochemistry: PhD - Chemical
Physics, Louisiana State University

RufusAtticus · 07-19-2003, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guts
Evolution can be creationism if you define it so plastically. However, the context for which ID is usualy called creationism is incorrect.

It is very common to use creationism as "anti-evolution," and in that sense ID is very much creationism.

Quote:

ID does not conduct investigations using a Biblical framework.

Correct, ID does not conduct any investigations.

Quote:

This is not just critiquing textbook illustrations. This is critiquing the Kettlewell experiment. He used artificial conditions and the experiment should not be presented in textbooks as evidence for evolution.

Quote:

Irrelevant.

No, it is not.

Quote:

A lot of them are Biologists and they all signed a statement to the effect that there problem is with neo-Darwinism, not philosophical or theological.

A lot? What's that 5% or 10%? If that was true then they should be able to provide a scientific justification for their doubts. Hmm, where is it? All I see is a bunch of devout, conservative christians having problems with fields that they don't even study.

Quote:

They are not convinced that natural selection and random mutation would likely produce the complexity we see in Biology.

Yeah so what? This arugment to authority only has merit if these people have authority. But guess what. It's not suprising that people who don't study population biology might not be convinced about it. I'm not convinced that Mozart was an important composer in the history of music. Does that mean that I should go to the local schoolboard and present my opinion as evidence that there are flaws in music theory and history?

Quote:

Here's a couple:

Where? I don't see any biologists. I do see a pair of chemists.

Quote:

Russell W. Carlson: University of Georgia: Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Technical Director of
the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Who has absolutely no background that makes him an authority on evolutionary biology. I have never seen him at an evolutionary biology seminar on my campus. In fact, it is clear from his actions at UGA that he doesn't have a scientific objection to evolution, but a religious one. The same thing goes for Fritz Schaefer.

Quote:

Leon L. Combs: Kennesaw State University: Professor and Chair, Chemistry and Biochemistry: PhD - Chemical
Physics, Louisiana State University

And the opinion of the chemical physicist counts?

Principia · 07-20-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Guts: A lot of them are Biologists...

Absolute BS. There's about as many "biologists" in that list as there are biology faculty members in one average-sized academic institution. But if you consider Ray Bohlin a "biologist" then really, there ought to be no reason why your list can't expand to, say, the illustrious members of ICR or AiG. After all, some of those people have published much more than their dissertation research.

Quote:

Guts: ID does not conduct investigations using a Biblical framework.

ID does not necessarily conduct investigations using a Biblical framework -- but Biblical literalism is most certainly consistent with ID. You go tell the Creationists that they're not doing ID research. But, even the Creationists realize what's going on with this rhetorical tactic:

Quote:

Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM (Intelligent Design Movement) reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man�s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time. Were the IDM to partially succeed in its initial aims, some of the strongest opponents of literal Genesis may well arise from its recently-victorious ranks.

So you claim that ID is not Creationism. You claim that ID does not do research according to the Bible. We can keep talking about what ID is not. Such argumentation from the negative is typical amongst your ilk.

Let's try a different approach. Why don't you illustrate for us the ID research that is going on?

EDIT: to qualify my first sentence in this post.

Guts · 07-21-2003, 07:57 PM

Rufus Atticus wrote:

Quote:

It is very common to use creationism as "anti-evolution," and in that sense ID is very much creationism.

Even that definition fails to describe ID. ID is not "anti-evolution". In fact, Behe is an evolutionist. However, ID is anti-Darwinian, it disagrees that the Darwinian mechanism can account for the diversity of life.

Quote:

Correct, ID does not conduct any investigations.

Wow. Do you guys really think that this type of argumentation is logical? Completely misrepresent what I said and twist it into something that is completely absurd. I never said that ID does not conduct any investigation. In fact, it conducts plenty, here's a sample:

http://www.idthink.net/biot/index.html

Your link simply shows a bunch of Steve's that agree with Darwinism, I still don't see the relevance of such a question.

Quote:

A lot? What's that 5% or 10%? If that was true then they should be able to provide a scientific justification for their doubts. Hmm, where is it? All I see is a bunch of devout, conservative christians having problems with fields that they don't even study.

Umm, something tells me that you have actually never looked at the list. Many of them are PhDs in the field of molecular biology, ecology, cell biology, genetics, entomology etc. These are highly relevant to Darwinian evolution. If it's not, then Darwinian evolution is completely irrelevant to biology.

The scientific justification for their position is simple, there is no evidence that RM&NS would likely produce the complexity we see in Biology.

Quote:

Yeah so what? This arugment to authority only has merit if these people have authority.

You are changing the subject. You asked if there were any Biologists on the list, then you moved the goal posts and said they do not study in the relevant fields. Since I have shown both assertions to be false, you say that I'm using an argument from authority, huh?

Quote:

But guess what. It's not suprising that people who don't study population biology might not be convinced about it.

But the list contains plenty of scientists that do study population biology (entomology for example).

Quote:

I'm not convinced that Mozart was an important composer in the history of music. Does that mean that I should go to the local schoolboard and present my opinion as evidence that there are flaws in music theory and history?

If you were a music historian (or even just a layman) that actually had reasons to doubt that Mozart was an importan tcomposer in the history of music, then you would have every right to go to your local schoolboard and ask that this topic be debated.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a couple:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Where? I don't see any biologists. I do see a pair of chemists.

Uh no there was one that I showed you that was not a chemist.

I wrote:

Quote:

Russell W. Carlson: University of Georgia: Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology; Technical Director of
the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Quote:

Who has absolutely no background that makes him an authority on evolutionary biology. I have never seen him at an evolutionary biology seminar on my campus. In fact, it is clear from his actions at UGA that he doesn't have a scientific objection to evolution, but a religious one. The same thing goes for Fritz Schaefer.

First, having a background in Biochemistry and molecular biology is completely relevant to evolutionary biology. Again, if it isn't, what you are saying is that Darwinian evolution is completely irrelevant to biochemistry and molecular Biology. You also plainly see that he is not a chemist. That you have never seen him at an evolutionary seminar on your campus is irrelevant. Thats like saying , I have never seen Stephen Jay Gould at an evolutionary seminar in my University, thus, he is not a credible biologist.

His objection to Darwinism is not religious, what gives you that idea?

Quote:

And the opinion of the chemical physicist counts?

Absolutely:

Blackburne, B.P. and Hirst, J.D. 2001. Evolution of Functional Model Proteins. Journal of Chemical Physics, 115:1935-1942

Guts · 07-21-2003, 08:11 PM

I wrote:

Quote:

A lot of them are Biologists...

Principia replied:

Quote:

Absolute BS.

What is BS about what I said? The list , which contains about 136 scientists from Georgia and around the nation, contains a lot of Biologists and that is absolutely correct. Here's another one.

Keith S. Delaplane: University of Georgia: Professor, Entomology: PhD - Entomology, Louisiana State University

Quote:

After all, some of those people have published much more than their dissertation research.

Bohlin also published in the Journal of Mammalogy and J. Thermal Biology, not just his dissertation research.

Quote:

ID does not necessarily conduct investigations using a Biblical framework -- but Biblical literalism is most certainly consistent with ID. You go tell the Creationists that they're not doing ID research.

No, saying that the original cells were designed and evolution thereafter was front-loaded is not consistent with biblical literalism. This is a hypothesis that ID takes seriously. There is a difference between opting to use a Biblical framework and specifically excluding. ID does the latter. Your quote proves my point.

Quote:

So you claim that ID is not Creationism. You claim that ID does not do research according to the Bible. We can keep talking about what ID is not. Such argumentation from the negative is typical amongst your ilk.

How ironic. Keep on misrepresenting IDers like Bohlin by not mentioning that papers in Journal of Mammalogy past 1980 are not listed in Pubmed. Lets keep that a secret and hope no one finds out! Some skeptcism. Some positive argumentation.

Quote:

Let's try a different approach. Why don't you illustrate for us the ID research that is going on?

Here's a small sample:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=6;t=000121
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=6;t=000069
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimate...c&f=6&t=000017
http://idthink.net/biot/degrad/index.html
http://idthink.net/biot/dna/index.html
http://idthink.net/biot/pseudo/index.html
http://idthink.net/biot/proof/index.html
http://idthink.net/biot/molsim/index.html
http://idthink.net/biot/code/index.html
http://idthink.net/biot/lag/index.html

Goober · 07-21-2003, 09:16 PM

Am I the only one who couldn't give a shit if Guts can throw around the names of a few scientists? It proves nothing. For every one name you come up with, I'm sure someone else could find 10 scientists who agreed with evolution completely. So give it up, it's totally useless. Perhaps you should quit whining about the tiny minority of misguided scientists you've found and concentrate on evidence instead.

Oh wait, that's right there is no evidence for ID.

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

07-21-2003, 09:16 PM	#40
Goober Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,202	Am I the only one who couldn't give a shit if Guts can throw around the names of a few scientists? It proves nothing. For every one name you come up with, I'm sure someone else could find 10 scientists who agreed with evolution completely. So give it up, it's totally useless. Perhaps you should quit whining about the tiny minority of misguided scientists you've found and concentrate on evidence instead. Oh wait, that's right there is no evidence for ID.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.