Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

paddoboy said:
And yet the vast majority of equally competent and credentialed biologists, can and do interpret things far differently.
So we get down to honesty as you point out.
Science is a discipline in progress as most of us know, and is constantly modified, added to, or changed as observations improve, so in that respect, I find it hard to imagine that it has any agenda collectively speaking.
Religion, IDers and YEC's have been systematically pushed further and further into oblivion by the advances in science and cosmology in particular: In that respect, they certainly do have an agenda and a "duty" to re-establish and further their cause by whatever means it takes, as has been shown throughout history and continues to be shown.
You chose to side with the latter despite its totally unscientific rhetoric and nonsense they continually push.
I chose to stick with the tried and true scientific discipline and methodology as dictated by observational and experimental evidence.

In summing again, this thread was initially about the delivery styles of two well respected scientists. You certainly helped to side track that debate, and further more you have ignored and short circuited all attempts by myself to get it back on track, obviously because you believe you are on some sort of evangelistic mission, to uphold the crumbling facade of ID ism in the face of relenting scientific advancement and knowledge.
Click to expand...
And if I again point out you are singling me out for your own personal petty reasons - the quick retort of 'crying victim' will be sure to follow. Have a so so day, paddoboy.
 
Q-reeus said:
And if I again point out you are singling me out for your own personal petty reasons - the quick retort of 'crying victim' will be sure to follow. Have a so so day, paddoboy.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong, simple as that. Remember again, it was you who helped to derail this thread and certainly you who disrupted all my attempts to bring it back on line.
And if I was singling you out, who am I singling you out from? I mean you are the only one pushing ID.
And of course I have no petty reasons other than science and the scientific method, and the fact that ID is unscientific.
 
Yazata said:
The whole thing was always very cordial. Kenyon was sometimes more technically informed than his opponent about the biology, but at a disadvantage since he was trying to defend a viewpoint that was more difficult to defend. Having said that, I don't recall a lot of disagreement about the raw data of evolutionary biology, the data upon which evolutionary theorizing is built. The disagreements arose regarding its interpretation and were often more philosophical than scientific. It was hugely educational for us students, since we could observe complex problem cases being addressed from all angles by exceedingly smart minds. I learned a lot of philosophy of science sitting in there, from watching it play out in action
Click to expand...
That is in line with everything I have read about the guy from people who met him.

Which is why the low quality of his arguments in his textbooks, articles written for linkage by our ID friends here, and so forth, makes me wonder. As noted before, the dumbing down involved seems (deliberately?) manipulative in a way I associate with the Catholic "justified lie" theological position, which was almost certainly part of Kenyon's reading and thinking at Oxford if not elsewhere. (He mentions Teilhard de Chardin, guys like that).
Yazata said:
Interestingly, I don't recall him ever teaching a science class on ID, despite its scientific pretensions
Click to expand...
He was a creationist, based in the Christian Bible. There is no science class possible in that - there's no way to teach one. He was an intelligent man.
Yazata said:
I don't believe that he was a young-earth creationist when I knew him. He certainly gave no indication of it and seemed to me to be rather dismissive of the young earth idea. I haven't spoken with him for 30 years, so I don't know how his thinking has evolved since then, but I'd be surprised if he was a YEC now. I believe that the anonymously authored Wikipedia article is wrong about that. (It seems to have been written by a hostile individual who probably never knew Kenyon.)
Click to expand...
The article I linked goes into some detail of his biography, with evidence such as endorsements and issues addressed: he was and is at minimum - the very minimum - someone who accepts YEC as a legitimate and plausible possibility, from very early on in his career.

If you did not know that, revisit your impression of his honesty. I don't mean to question his honesty, exactly - but the matter is complicated.
 
Q-reeus said:
Righto, so don't believe me then. We don't want any acts of Faith showing here. Other than in naturalistic abiogenesis of course.
Click to expand...
When it's based on evidence, it's not faith. But why do you hold up faith as a virtue and then disparage it in the next sentence?
 
exchemist said:
You mean, you think that, to quote your own exact words: "[1] Abiogenesis occurred due to conditions on Earth at a particular time", constitutes an explanation?

Seriously? :confused:
Click to expand...
Explanation, certainly......like the BB, we may not yet know the how or the why, but scientifically, it is the only explanation open to us.
I would most certainly like to know more detail in that regard.
I fail to see why you are confused.
 
Abiogenesis, carbon and the fluid water.

I have not followed the 25 pages before my post, but I haven't seen carbon mentioned.
 
spidergoat said:
When it's based on evidence, it's not faith.
Click to expand...
Sure, but naturalistic abiogenesis has no empirical evidence, only an appeal to 'we are here so it must be true'.
But why do you hold up faith as a virtue...
Click to expand...
I didn't. You missed my parodying of your 'I don't believe you'. In this arena, it's down to belief one way or the other. Given the to date zero number of plausible hypotheses invoking unguided mechanisms as leading to life.
...and then disparage it in the next sentence?
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Q-reeus said:
naturalistic abiogenesis has no empirical evidence
Click to expand...
It does seem however a reasonable assumption given that if we look for an alternative reason we must resort to something suggesting the existence of some supernatural entity.
I think life may well come from a complexity of chemistry rather than say an inteligent designer.
I can understand how religious folk may crave to have ID accepted as science but really there is nothing about it that could be called scientific. To suggest irreduciable complexity is a pointer is not a scientific reason.
The bottom line is there are things we do not know and perhaps saying we do not know is really the only inteligent answer we should entertain.
Alex
 
Q-reeus said:
Sure, but naturalistic abiogenesis has no empirical evidence, only an appeal to 'we are here so it must be true'.
Click to expand...
:D So what's your alternative? Some mythical non scientific explanation such as ID?
In fact abiogenesis obviously occurred, as at some point in time, there was no life on our planet, and then there there was life.
There are many hypotheses as to the pathway and mechanisms that gave rise to life including Panspermia.
That as yet we do not know.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
It does seem however a reasonable assumption given that if we look for an alternative reason we must resort to something suggesting the existence of some supernatural entity.
I think life may well come from a complexity of chemistry rather than say an inteligent designer.
I can understand how religious folk may crave to have ID accepted as science but really there is nothing about it that could be called scientific. To suggest irreduciable complexity is a pointer is not a scientific reason.
The bottom line is there are things we do not know and perhaps saying we do not know is really the only inteligent answer we should entertain.
Alex
Click to expand...
Alex, I have no problem with you or anyone else holding to that position. Others should though be free to see it otherwise without being routinely smeared as mental/moral defectives. As happens here. Regarding that bit in red, there was a real nugget in the article linked to in #488:
http://www.equip.org/article/non-re...nian-evolution-proponents-intelligent-design/
LYNN MARGULIS
A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and once the wife of Carl Sagan,...In a 2003 book co-authored with Dorion Sagan (the son of Carl),...

You should read the entire section on her there. Brings it back on track. A posthumous footnote to Sagan's stellar career many wish to be side-lined completely.
 
paddoboy said:
:D So what's your alternative? Some mythical non scientific explanation such as ID?
In fact abiogenesis obviously occurred, as at some point in time, there was no life on our planet, and then there there was life.
There are many hypotheses as to the pathway and mechanisms that gave rise to life including Panspermia.
That as yet we do not know.
Click to expand...
How many times is this circle going to circulate here? Going for a record perhaps? Maybe time for mods to put a padlock on this one.
 
Q-reeus said:
How many times is this circle going to circulate here? Going for a record perhaps? Maybe time for mods to put a padlock on this one.
Click to expand...
:smile::rolleyes:
Well as long as you keep claiming derisively your mission against abiogenisis, the short comings of your claims will continually be rebuffed and shown to be wrong.
Q-reeus said:
. Others should though be free to see it otherwise without being routinely smeared as mental/moral defectives
Click to expand...
Showing that someone is holding a non scientific position, is not the same as calling them mentally defective. And obviously perhaps you need do some self examination on that score yourself.:rolleyes:
You have a good day, ya hear!;)
 
"Sure, but naturalistic abiogenesis has no empirical evidence, only an appeal to 'we are here so it must be true'."

Life is made of chemistry. We know there are naturalistic mechanisms that cause such complex systems to evolve, both points in favor of nothing supernatural occurring.
 
Q-reeus said:
Sure, but naturalistic abiogenesis has no empirical evidence, only an appeal to 'we are here so it must be true'
Click to expand...
As repeatedly posted - with lists of examples and so forth - there is a very great deal of evidence for it, supporting serious and as yet unanswered argument. Why do you ignore that, and deny all those examples?
 
iceaura said:
As repeatedly posted - with lists of examples and so forth - there is a very great deal of evidence for it, supporting serious and as yet unanswered argument. Why do you ignore that, and deny all those examples?
Click to expand...
There is zero evidence for it. And you know better than to assert otherwise. No example you or anyone else can offer amounts to more than a hypothesis pleading exceedingly special conditions for it to be viable. And even then only viable within some tiny aspect of the entire process needed to go from simple amino acids and such, to life.
If you persist in claiming otherwise, actually show in detail where you think for instance James Tour's broad critique gets it fundamentally wrong. Link given in e.g. #327.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top