I never disputed that they were Creationists. I simply contend that they did not practice Creation Science. They held (or at least professed) religious beliefs, but they did not use science to try to prove them. Again I ask about a modern Evolutionary Biologist who happens to also be Christian: is this a Creationist? Does his work necessarily support ID?
Where did I ever say that religious belief inhibited the pursuit of science? Where did I say that science will end? I'm just saying that painting religion up as science is bad for both.
And you still haven't shown a correlation other than coincidence. Professing Christians have brought a lot of novel ideas into the world. Are you ready to claim that Christianity was responsible for all of them?
When I made the "Christianity produced modern science" comment, I actually wrote an entire blog entry on the topic-- complete with quotes from historians of science, scientists, Newton, Capernicus, etc... If you want it, I'll post it. I'm getting the feeling more and more that it's an irrelevant point. Now, I think our main disagreement is about the causal acceptances of the founders of modern science and their applicability to the definition of science today. If that is the point, let's discuss it. As a matter of fact, I continued that point in the "judge jones" thread.
If we should still be discussing Christianity as a mother and midwife to modern science, I'll post it in a new post and we can chew on it a bit more.
More boilerplate... I guess you missed our discussions on falsification? Care to show me a neo-Darwinian claim that is impossible to falsify?
I didn't miss it. As a matter of fact, I stay a bit confused by it when you jump between the statements that ID is both non-falsifiable and falsified.
Some neo-Darwinian claims that are beyond falsification:
* Natural selection gave us the vastly differing forms of life we find on Earth today.
* Evolution happened by a process that was unguided, blind, and had no result in mind.
* The fossil record would match neo-Darwinian expectations. It is incomplete due to many potential reasons-- none of which can be tested.
* Similarity means kinship, and thus if we find similarity in the fossil record, that means "transitional fossils" .
There are lots more, but those are just a few off of the top of my head. We won't even get into the fact that the entire theory is untestable as implemented and treated-- in that it is considered scientific truth with no need to test it. All that is required is to interpret all data to align with the now-self-evident-truth of neo-Darwinism.
There are plenty of detailed, testable (tested!), and observable (observed!) responses. What do you think is in the mountain of paper presented to him on the stand? He simply waves it off as not good enough.
The key word here is "systems." Systems are complex combinations of many different specialized cells. Providing an exact, definitive explanation for how one came to be is impossible with the tools we have today. Yet, we do have evidence to explain the development of the components of these systems. We also have evidence that points to how and when these components were combined.
I'll post a "placeholder entry" for you to make your case in comments about the irreducibly complex system(s). Just realize that you can't describe the creation of a space shuttle by starting with a jet fighter. You'll also need to provide specifics that take care of the complexities involved-- not use generalities such as "sprang forth:, "issued from", etc... Give us some detail, and please make it detail that accounts for the huge gaps that have to be overcome simultaneously. Like, the addition of working clotting and unclotting enzymes at the same time, so that you don't kill the organism with clotted blood in the system that can't unclot, or unclotted blood that makes the organism bleed to death.
Make sure that you provide it in such a way that existing systems remain operable as it occurs, and that it occurs in such a way that natural selection will view it as enough of an improvement as it happens that it is a selective priority. In short, give us a plausible story about how you turn an airplane into a spaceshuttle one bolt at a time while, not only keeping it airborn, but outperforming all the other airplanes competing with it.
Is this the kind of thing that he "waved off"? Or were they "just-so" stories using language like "sprang forth", etc...? Or is this one of those untestable claims that neo-Darwinism makes but you claim it doesn't?
Again, I'm confused, because you seem to chide Behe for "waving off" acceptable responses while also claiming that acceptable responses are impossible to give. And please don't cover the spaces between with arguments to incredulity. Either the response are testable and detailed or they are not. Your criticisms of Behe's expectations (and those same criticism in the published responses to date) give clear indication of what is on offer.
To continue my analogy, it's also impossible to provide a list of every person involved in the construction of the Parthenon, and a timeline of what tasks each one performed on each day. In the absence of that detail, must we dispute that the Greeks built the Parthenon? After all, it could have been done by aliens, right?
It's funny that you so often accuse me of making irrelevant analogies. So, now it's OK for me to use the design analogy for biological output?
Please show me where I've ever said chance was not involved.
You've said that my use of it in discussion is "ID boilerplate". Either it is or isn't.
Please show me where I've ever said it was planned. I'm afraid I'm not following your argument here.
It's obvious that you aren't following it if you think it involves claiming that you rely on design. I'm saying chance and design are the two known causes in play. Feel free to propose another. Note that without a designer, even natural "law" and order inevitably fall back to chance. But again, feel free to propose another cause in play.
Your answers to those questions certainly will influence your path of inquiry. If you believe god created the world literally as described in Genesis, you're quite likely to dismiss or ignore hard evidence to the contrary (and possibly consider it an offense against god to even entertain these contrary ideas).
I think you're reading a lot into my reasons for distrusting neo-Darwinism. I can honestly say that it has little to do with religious preferences. I just think that for something that seeks to explain away what even it admits is apparent, it will have to make a much stronger case than it does.
Design is apparent. Neo-Darwinian evolution is full of "just-so" explanations-- many explaining away a lack of evidence that should be there if it is true, evidences that the founder claimed would turn up if true, and evidences that the founders claimed would greatly harm the theory if they didn't turn up. Much of the evidence used FOR it has been proven fraudulent, thus damaging the credibility of many in the community-- especially considering that a lot of the fraudulent evidence has been circulated and used (even in textbooks) since being shown incorrect and/or fraudulent.
It hasn't made its case strong enough to overturn what is "apparent". Further, it can't explain the ultimate causes, such as life's existence in the first place.
So, you seem to think neo-Darwinism so proven that it is irrational for anyone to doubt it? You think it so proven that to discount it is "religious bias"? Sorry... You're WAY off. And you're way off of your turf if you think that can be projected to others so easily.
Is neo-Darwinism true? Maybe. Does it take a religious closed-mindedness to reject it? Hardly.
...more like mutilated horses... :)
Listen, I think we are talking around each other.
I never disputed that they were Creationists. I simply contend that they did not practice Creation Science. They held (or at least professed) religious beliefs, but they did not use science to try to prove them. Again I ask about a modern Evolutionary Biologist who happens to also be Christian: is this a Creationist? Does his work necessarily support ID?
Where did I ever say that religious belief inhibited the pursuit of science? Where did I say that science will end? I'm just saying that painting religion up as science is bad for both.
And you still haven't shown a correlation other than coincidence. Professing Christians have brought a lot of novel ideas into the world. Are you ready to claim that Christianity was responsible for all of them?
When I made the "Christianity produced modern science" comment, I actually wrote an entire blog entry on the topic-- complete with quotes from historians of science, scientists, Newton, Capernicus, etc... If you want it, I'll post it. I'm getting the feeling more and more that it's an irrelevant point. Now, I think our main disagreement is about the causal acceptances of the founders of modern science and their applicability to the definition of science today. If that is the point, let's discuss it. As a matter of fact, I continued that point in the "judge jones" thread.
If we should still be discussing Christianity as a mother and midwife to modern science, I'll post it in a new post and we can chew on it a bit more.
More boilerplate... I guess you missed our discussions on falsification? Care to show me a neo-Darwinian claim that is impossible to falsify?
I didn't miss it. As a matter of fact, I stay a bit confused by it when you jump between the statements that ID is both non-falsifiable and falsified.
Some neo-Darwinian claims that are beyond falsification:
* Natural selection gave us the vastly differing forms of life we find on Earth today.
* Evolution happened by a process that was unguided, blind, and had no result in mind.
* The fossil record would match neo-Darwinian expectations. It is incomplete due to many potential reasons-- none of which can be tested.
* Similarity means kinship, and thus if we find similarity in the fossil record, that means "transitional fossils" .
There are lots more, but those are just a few off of the top of my head. We won't even get into the fact that the entire theory is untestable as implemented and treated-- in that it is considered scientific truth with no need to test it. All that is required is to interpret all data to align with the now-self-evident-truth of neo-Darwinism.
There are plenty of detailed, testable (tested!), and observable (observed!) responses. What do you think is in the mountain of paper presented to him on the stand? He simply waves it off as not good enough.
The key word here is "systems." Systems are complex combinations of many different specialized cells. Providing an exact, definitive explanation for how one came to be is impossible with the tools we have today. Yet, we do have evidence to explain the development of the components of these systems. We also have evidence that points to how and when these components were combined.
I'll post a "placeholder entry" for you to make your case in comments about the irreducibly complex system(s). Just realize that you can't describe the creation of a space shuttle by starting with a jet fighter. You'll also need to provide specifics that take care of the complexities involved-- not use generalities such as "sprang forth:, "issued from", etc... Give us some detail, and please make it detail that accounts for the huge gaps that have to be overcome simultaneously. Like, the addition of working clotting and unclotting enzymes at the same time, so that you don't kill the organism with clotted blood in the system that can't unclot, or unclotted blood that makes the organism bleed to death.
Make sure that you provide it in such a way that existing systems remain operable as it occurs, and that it occurs in such a way that natural selection will view it as enough of an improvement as it happens that it is a selective priority. In short, give us a plausible story about how you turn an airplane into a spaceshuttle one bolt at a time while, not only keeping it airborn, but outperforming all the other airplanes competing with it.
Is this the kind of thing that he "waved off"? Or were they "just-so" stories using language like "sprang forth", etc...? Or is this one of those untestable claims that neo-Darwinism makes but you claim it doesn't?
Again, I'm confused, because you seem to chide Behe for "waving off" acceptable responses while also claiming that acceptable responses are impossible to give. And please don't cover the spaces between with arguments to incredulity. Either the response are testable and detailed or they are not. Your criticisms of Behe's expectations (and those same criticism in the published responses to date) give clear indication of what is on offer.
To continue my analogy, it's also impossible to provide a list of every person involved in the construction of the Parthenon, and a timeline of what tasks each one performed on each day. In the absence of that detail, must we dispute that the Greeks built the Parthenon? After all, it could have been done by aliens, right?
It's funny that you so often accuse me of making irrelevant analogies. So, now it's OK for me to use the design analogy for biological output?
Please show me where I've ever said chance was not involved.
You've said that my use of it in discussion is "ID boilerplate". Either it is or isn't.
Please show me where I've ever said it was planned. I'm afraid I'm not following your argument here.
It's obvious that you aren't following it if you think it involves claiming that you rely on design. I'm saying chance and design are the two known causes in play. Feel free to propose another. Note that without a designer, even natural "law" and order inevitably fall back to chance. But again, feel free to propose another cause in play.
Your answers to those questions certainly will influence your path of inquiry. If you believe god created the world literally as described in Genesis, you're quite likely to dismiss or ignore hard evidence to the contrary (and possibly consider it an offense against god to even entertain these contrary ideas).
I think you're reading a lot into my reasons for distrusting neo-Darwinism. I can honestly say that it has little to do with religious preferences. I just think that for something that seeks to explain away what even it admits is apparent, it will have to make a much stronger case than it does.
Design is apparent. Neo-Darwinian evolution is full of "just-so" explanations-- many explaining away a lack of evidence that should be there if it is true, evidences that the founder claimed would turn up if true, and evidences that the founders claimed would greatly harm the theory if they didn't turn up. Much of the evidence used FOR it has been proven fraudulent, thus damaging the credibility of many in the community-- especially considering that a lot of the fraudulent evidence has been circulated and used (even in textbooks) since being shown incorrect and/or fraudulent.
It hasn't made its case strong enough to overturn what is "apparent". Further, it can't explain the ultimate causes, such as life's existence in the first place.
So, you seem to think neo-Darwinism so proven that it is irrational for anyone to doubt it? You think it so proven that to discount it is "religious bias"? Sorry... You're WAY off. And you're way off of your turf if you think that can be projected to others so easily.
Is neo-Darwinism true? Maybe. Does it take a religious closed-mindedness to reject it? Hardly.
Take care... Much love, bro...