Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Neither of those links involves an argument made by Kenyon. The arguments he made from those issues, and others similar, were not sound, no.
When you linked to Kenyon (as with your other links) you ignored his arguments, and attempted to invoke his authority instead of argument to back your contentions. Since you paid no attention to Kenyon's arguments, which were and are garbage, and instead focused on his credentials, that was the focus of the reply.
My focus was not on his YEC whacknotions, but the way his arguments do not measure up to his education or personal reputation - his arguments look dumbed down, manipulative. They are unsound, wrongheaded, to a degree that is difficult to credit to someone with his experience and credentials. They remind me of the kinds of "arguments" Jesuit missionaries used to establish the Catholic saints and revered personages among the existing pantheon of deities and beliefs wherever they went - moving the holidays around to match, adopting local rituals of veneration, etc.
Except for the last part starting with Jesuit missionaries (I guess any 'devout' Catholics here will take no offense at), the rest there is your trademark mix of outrageous misrepresentations and bald assertions. Ugh.
Well done. No surprising you eh?
Trekking round the open nature park I step in what I think (presume etc etc and based on previous visits to the park) elephant dung.
Instantly I start looking for the duck who dropped it there.
Any one in this discussion know of an ID'er who is not religious? Or a elephant who doesn't push out elephant dung?
I am aware of many religious persons who are not ID'ers.
What about a agnostic (and all sub groups) ID'er? Or a duck who pushes out elephant dung?
Not biting.
Michael - because you asked nicely. He he, only kidding. OK, so about ducks shitting elephant pooh. Umm...no. Too hard. Let's try "are there any non-religious ID 'freaks'". Well, you know how there is this thing called doing a web search? I just did one. Typed in 'non-religious ID proponents'. Guess what? Seconds later, noticed at #1 down the list:
http://www.equip.org/article/non-re...nian-evolution-proponents-intelligent-design/
Yes I know what you must be thinking. It's all a sham - cunning make-believe front to sucker sincere, innocent, but naive folks in and treat them to a program of gradualist religious indoctrination. Or maybe it really IS just like it says there. You don't HAVE to be an iceauraeske 'A fundie' or an otherwise unejaKtd hick, to take ID seriously.
Think about that remote possibility Michael - when not under the influence that is. But don't worry, I have a feeling a certain someone will quicky lay into each and every name listed there and relentlessly expose their 'real' credentials/agenda/other sneaky awfulnesses.... Please DO bite here. Must fly.
Is everyone afraid of me ?
I ask a simple question and I get " not biting " .
Social constructs are not my strong point , never have been .
I guess most of the time , I can put things together , but I'm not always right .
Anyway
Last edited:
"As a self-described “good Darwinian,”6 Tallis understands natural selection to be a “blind watchmaker,” that cannot select for future goals. But he acknowledges what few Darwinians will admit—that blind selection cannot explain the goal-directed nature of human consciousness:"
Against my better half I took the bait.
Went to the link.
Skimmed through.
Most was same old same old.
"Darwinism is so wrong here, here, over there and especially that bit there".
OK OK every ID'er listen up. WE KNOW!!!!
Now anyone (literally anyone, or anything, alive or dead, real or imaginary) take any illustrated defect and show how ID handled it.
The italics section I thought not exactly worthy of mention but more of a self thought bubble to explore.
Tallis understands natural selection to be a “blind watchmaker,” that cannot select for future goals.
Well done.
Natural selection........ cannot select for future goals.
Who would have thought natural selection is/was unaware of the end game?
How about all the versions tried that didn't work out never got out of the starting gate but those that did still had a hard slog AND still carried defects which occasionally break through?
".....few Darwinians will admit—that blind selection cannot explain the goal-directed nature of human consciousness:"
Cue the lion with the wide open mouth and the idiot about to put his head in.
The goal directed human consciousness is concerned with meeting needs.
Short term
Pickup milk on the way home.
I need milk.
Etc etc.
Goal directed long term
"I want to go to heaven"
"I don't want to go to hell".
Extra long term (when the rapture arrives) doesn't have anything to do with human consciousness but is only an extension of long term human goals.
Problem is that rapture remains at gods prerogative. Only will occur when he decides.
To mangle George Formby:-
I'm leaning on a lamp-post at the corner of the street
In case a certain little rapture comes by
Oh me, oh my, I hope the little rapture comes by
Good night everybody
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
He was certainly competent in formal terms. Stanford PhD, research experience at NASA Ames, etc. He was rather controversial at SFSU, since many students (and fellow faculty) weren't comfortable with evolutionary biology being taught by a prominent critic of evolutionary biology. But he wasn't the only guy teaching evolutionary biology and there were other classes for him to teach. He understood evolutionary biology better than most biologists and was able to teach it very well. There wasn't any creationist content in his classes. He would point out difficulties and controversies regarding various hypotheses as he went along, but that was what any good teacher would do.
Interestingly, I don't recall him ever teaching a science class on ID, despite its scientific pretensions.
I encountered him in some team-taught classes that did address the evolution/ID issues more straight forwardly. They weren't offered by the biology department though, but rather by something called 'NEXA' which addressed science-humanities interactions. (It was a great idea but I don't think that these classes exist at SFSU any longer.) There were many NEXA classes, all were very good, and the ones featuring Dean Kenyon were very popular and standing room only. He would be paired up with a proponent of evolution and the class would be kind of a semester long interaction. Each meeting addressed something like the history of evolutionary and creationist ideas, their literary or artistic impact on the wider culture, and the many philosophical and theological issues.
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. (I've always thought that our alternative fora could be like that, if they were conducted right.)
He's retired now. He must be getting up in years.
He was very smart and very humane, he never used insults and snark to put down people he disagreed with. (That's a virtue that many people on Sciforums should emulate.) Regarding honesty, I don't recall him ever saying anything that I didn't think he believed was true.
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.)
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No, but so what? All you have done is listed the logically possible natural causes of life on Earth. None of these is an explanation of any sort, let alone a theory.
Of course we can. We know there is life now. We know there was no life at the formation of the universe. Therefore it began.
Consider discovering a rock in the woods. You may know nothing about it. But one thing you know for sure is that at some point it became a rock.
Yes, it does - just as the concept that the thing in your hand became a rock at some point is the winner by default.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I think what I said is pretty clear. Abiogenesis is a technical word (label) for the chemical-then-biochemical process of the origin of life. Calling this unknown process "abiogenesis" does not mean anybody has a theory as to how life originated. It's just a label for the (unresolved) issue.
I strongly disagree: Of course they are explanations......the only explanations that we know that can be ascertained.
People are not biting because people are awake to your shenanigans as evidenced from the past, including obfuscated replies, the usual meaningless one liners, the fanatical unevidenced support for woo, without any evidence, the ignoring of reputable articles and evidence showing you as usual to be wrong....need I go on? Yeah sure, why not?...your refusal to answer questions, more meaningless one liner dribble, trolling, etc etc
Afraid of you?
Last edited:
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.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I don't believe you. Fans of pseudoscience don't get to tell people what the science is.
I feel safe to give you a "like" as I don't believe q-reeus will dare attempt his usual immaterial comments after he has given a "like" to, wait for it!!!! river at post 484
Thanks for that very informative post. It gels with my impressions from the outside. I have learned be especially wary of raw assertions, and unfortunately 'our god' Wikipedia cannot be trusted as source of Truth, only provisionally, and with care.