Silkworm to debate Creationist at his college (any advice?)

[silkworm]

I like Lucaspa. I remember him. He introduced me to an honest-Christian website maintained by a I think an Episcopalian guy who keeps his God and comes to honorable terms with science. Cool guy. Hello Lucaspa' date=' if memory serves we have met before maybe a year ago. Glad to see you, if that's you.

I'm out of here. Just dropped in for a moment. I'm reading a great new quantum gravity paper, and nothing will make me stop doing that today.[/quote']

 

Pfff. Quantum gravity. Sounds rational. The big day is tomorrow, thanks for all the help Martin.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa' date=' I didn't get 2 files, I'm not sure you can attach them to posts, maybe you can. Would you like to email me? Thanks for the help and support and I'm reviewing the information you have sent me.

 

As a sidenote, I don't advertise my atheism because by what I address it's a moot point, but I will not lie if asked.

 

No, you shouldn't lie, and I am not suggesting you do. I am only asking that you present that atheism as a personal faith and not dictated by science or a product of science. Also that you honestly present evolution as an alternative method for how God created. Yes, that isn't your personal belief, but you can present the position as a reasonable and valid belief.

 

The support for ID/creationism is more cultural than religious in these parts and I am one of them.

 

I can see that by the call for "all people who voted for Bush" to turn out at the meeting. But they also call for people from churches.

 

I have been met with success as well, because what I care about is defending the audience who I address,

 

Yes, you can present yourself as not wanting to see the audience be conned and told something that isn't true. It's equivalent to stepping in and telling the used-car customer that the used-car salesman is telling them untruths about the car.

 

I see little point in beating Lucas in an invalid argument

 

What do you mean by that?

 

I have been met with success in past meetings, however Lucas' first meeting I had the least (although there were the most people there) because of the odd format, and this format is even more odd with the CCTV.

 

Because you don't get to respond directly to Lucas. Which is why you have to be proactive and defuse Lucas' equation of science to atheism and CCS to theism. You can't wait to just respond, but must educate people about science -- both the real theories, really how science is done, and how science really relates to religion. Science is agnostic, not atheistic. My experience is that, as long as the audience hears that a theory is "against God", it does no good to be technically correct about the theory. They have already tuned you out.

 

OK, this time the file attachments worked. I had to put them in PDF format.

Hitler and races created.pdf

Gobineau and racism.pdf

[lucaspa]

We're essentially saying the same thing, however, my point is because we can't control for God or test for God's existence so science does not care about the existence of God.

 

No, we DO care. We just can't comment. IOW, we care but can't do anything about that caring.

 

With a different set up, that the existence of God is of importance and consideration to science, gives them fuel for their argument, which that science and religion are bedfellows and that supernatural forces/entities need to be considered for valid science to take place.

 

Science and religion are bedfellows. Have been perceived that way for centuries. Even today scientists who are theists view science as figuring out how God works.

 

Remember that I made a distinction between DIRECT testing and getting God in by the backdoor? All of creationism is sneaking God in by the backdoor. That is, God is proposed to use a different material method. Instead of the BB to get the universe, God is supposed to have made all the stars instantaneously in their present form. Instead of evolution, again God is supposed to have manufactured species in their present form.

 

That "made" and "manufactured" are material methods we can test by science. And have shown them to be false. Yes, the material nature of this method is disguised because the manufacture is said to be by "miracle", but that is irrelevant. When anthropologists found the oldest stone tools, they didn't know how they were made. They had to rediscover/reinvent the technique. But they could decide the tools were manufactured (by now-extinct hominids).

 

Similarly, we can test whether species are manufactured or whether the stars were manufactured in their present form or formed by other processes.

 

The really good thing about acknowledging creationism/ID as a scientific theory is that you get to falsify it like we falsify any other theory. God isn't affected, but we get to make a very strong statement about creationism/ID: it is FALSE.

[silkworm]

Quote:

I see little point in beating Lucas in an invalid argument

 

What do you mean by that?

 

Well' date=' these meetings are billed as scientific arguments, however I have yet to see a valid scientific argument presented, as well as support for the invalid argument is supported by misrepresented textbook science. I'm not going to argue in scientific invalidity, I just point out that he's misrepresenting science and that his arguments are invalid scientifically. The Dawkins Method is correct in sentiment in this regard. If I attend and join his imaginary tea party I'm giving him validity, however if I go and say, there's no simply no tea here, that's a different thing entirely.

 

Quote:

I have been met with success in past meetings, however Lucas' first meeting I had the least (although there were the most people there) because of the odd format, and this format is even more odd with the CCTV.

 

Because you don't get to respond directly to Lucas. Which is why you have to be proactive and defuse Lucas' equation of science to atheism and CCS to theism. You can't wait to just respond, but must educate people about science -- both the real theories, really how science is done, and how science really relates to religion. Science is agnostic, not atheistic. My experience is that, as long as the audience hears that a theory is "against God", it does no good to be technically correct about the theory. They have already tuned you out.

 

OK, this time the file attachments worked. I had to put them in PDF format.

 

Waiting was my mistake in the last meeting, but the CCTV is supposed to be 2-way and I was told I will be given an opportunity to address Lucas in front of the audience. I don't attack him on the atheism-theism but I do attack him on the paranoia and the bad science.

 

If I'm told not to speak until he's finished presenting, I won't listen because I can't let him lie to the audience, who are probably being given their frame of reference with the lie, and tare what he said appart afterwards.

 

Also, agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, and I do not have the authority to redefine it for them.

 

Thank you for the files.

[lucaspa]

Although I didn't mention God' date=' and only did once overall. An ICR bookwriter attends all the meetings and he said that belief in God causes an accountability problem and that's why people want to not believe in him and believe in evolution (his assumption of course that they are mutually exlusive). I had to make the statement, "Then how are you going to be held accountable to God by endorsing the lies about science in these presentations?" It took a couple of days but he conceded there are misrepresentations, though he did so in private. [/quote']

 

Good comeback! You took away the high ground from him.

 

I go to these meetings as a student of science looking for a valid scientific argument, not as a religious person.

 

I understand that's why you go, but what about the audience? They are there to hear "Christianity" and God defended against what they perceive as science that is inherently atheistic.

 

That's how I approach it, and that's the only way I can do it honestly.

 

Sigh. I understand. Yes, you are doing your best, but you are handicapped by your beliefs. I'm asking you to set aside your personal beliefs and present evolution as it can honestly be presented: as the way God created. Yes, those are not your beliefs, but you do recognize that your beliefs are beliefs and could be wrong, right? There's nothing against science with evolution being presented, for theists, as how God created. Afer all, many evolutionists are theistic evolutionists. Atheists, of course, believe evolution works on its own because they believe there is no God.

 

I do feel I have authority now to comment on Darwin not being an atheist now, and thank you for pointing that out,

 

You're welcome.

[lucaspa]

Well, these meetings are billed as scientific arguments, however I have yet to see a valid scientific argument presented,

 

LOL! Of course not, considering that creationism was falsified by 1860!

 

I'm not going to argue in scientific invalidity, I just point out that he's misrepresenting science and that his arguments are invalid scientifically.

 

??? Please read what you wrote again. you say you won't argue in scientific invalidity, but then say his arguments are scientifically invalid. I think you meant to say something else, because this contradicts.

 

The Dawkins Method is correct in sentiment in this regard. If I attend and join his imaginary tea party I'm giving him validity,

 

What "imaginary tea party"? What's the "Dawkins Method"?

 

Also, agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, and I do not have the authority to redefine it for them.

 

Sure you do. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" specifically not to be confused with atheism. The terms are out there in the public domain. You are part of the public. You have the authority to give the correct definitions.

[silkworm]

Science and religion are bedfellows. Have been perceived that way for centuries. Even today scientists who are theists view science as figuring out how God works.

 

However, scientists come from different backgrounds. Different religions or no religion at all. And who a scientist is at home and where science exists are 2 entirely different places. Just like science is generally done a great disservice by being expressed in dramatic terms via the media (examples: "survival of the fittest," "disorder"), science does not have consult any religion or religious text in order to be good science. It simply must work. The marriage of science and religion is not done by science, though it is done by scientists at home and, unfortunately, by outsiders who take it out of context. This marriage is a cultural one and not a methodological one, as it is common for anyone to measure new ideas against what they already know, primarly given to them by their culture - which of course includes religion. It's simply done by unneccessary and unhappy accident, and it would be the best for both to be permanantly seperated and have no affect on the statements of the other.

[lucaspa]

Hello Lucaspa, if memory serves we have met before maybe a year ago. Glad to see you, if that's you.

 

It's me.

 

I'm out of here. Just dropped in for a moment. I'm reading a great new quantum gravity paper, and nothing will make me stop doing that today.

 

Let us know if the paper really does give us a valid theory of quantum gravity! After all, we've only been waiting for one for, what? over 30 years!

 

Better yet, give us the citation.

[silkworm]

Quote:

I go to these meetings as a student of science looking for a valid scientific argument' date=' not as a religious person.

 

I understand that's why you go, but what about the audience? They are there to hear "Christianity" and God defended against what they perceive as science that is inherently atheistic.[/quote']

 

They are there for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith, as a student of science I am naturally interested in the argument if one is presented, but when it's not I let them know. I don't go to these functions at church services, this is a public university.

 

Quote:

That's how I approach it' date=' and that's the only way I can do it honestly.

 

Sigh. I understand. Yes, you are doing your best, but you are handicapped by your beliefs. I'm asking you to set aside your personal beliefs and present evolution as it can honestly be presented: as the way God created. Yes, those are not your beliefs, but you do recognize that your beliefs are beliefs and could be wrong, right? There's nothing against science with evolution being presented, for theists, as how God created. Afer all, many evolutionists are theistic evolutionists. Atheists, of course, believe evolution works on its own because they believe there is no God. [/quote']

 

I do put my beliefs (or lack thereof) aside, I attend simply as a student of science. I refuse to lie to my own people, and if my atheism is exposed and becomes an issue I will simply say, "I was raised christian, I am a midwesterner, I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you. I'm here as a student of science, and I had to speak because these people are lying to you. Everything I say about textbook science can be verified by science textbooks."

 

Quote:

I'm not going to argue in scientific invalidity' date=' I just point out that he's misrepresenting science and that his arguments are invalid scientifically.

 

??? Please read what you wrote again. you say you won't argue in scientific invalidity, but then say his arguments are scientifically invalid. I think you meant to say something else, because this contradicts.[/quote']

 

I think that says what I meant, but just in case I'll put it another way. He goes up there and says something silly, I'm not going to go up there and say something silly back, I'm going to simply say, that's silly.

 

Quote:

The Dawkins Method is correct in sentiment in this regard. If I attend and join his imaginary tea party I'm giving him validity' date='

 

What "imaginary tea party"? What's the "Dawkins Method"?

[/quote']

 

Richard Dawkins and Jay Gould said that taking part in these "debates" gives the creationist side validity, a podium, that they wouldn't have otherwise. Sounds logical, so scientists generally avoid functions like these to avoid giving this ridiculousness merit. That's what we did here as science and education were under attack, which is just not show up and read the papers. However, ignoring this problem only makes it worse, by the tea party reference I believe that the Dawkins Method is correct if you say, "This isn't good tea, the tea is too sweet," instead of saying, "There is no tea here."

 

I know that's a bit abstract and I may not be expressing it well here, does it make sense?

 

Quote:

Also' date=' agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, and I do not have the authority to redefine it for them.

 

Sure you do. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" specifically not to be confused with atheism. The terms are out there in the public domain. You are part of the public. You have the authority to give the correct definitions.[/quote']

 

I know but agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, as are Judaism, Islam, and any other nonchristian belief (even to a small extent catholicism). This is generally an evangelical crowd. Whether or not the audience knows the difference in definitions is moot, any nonprotestant belief is seen as atheism here, as is pointed out by many specific examples both at these meetings and many church services/conversations with evangelicals I have attended in the past. It's also outside of the realm of my authority and nonreligious interests.

[lucaspa]

science does not have consult any religion or religious text in order to be good science. It simply must work.

 

I never said science had to consult a religious text. Hypotheses/theories are decided by direct experience of the physical universe.

 

However, thru most of the history of science, science has been viewed as figuring out how God works/created. Thus, science is not an enemy of, nor completely separate from, religion.

 

Even today, Dawkins use of science to bolster atheism and bash theism is having science be a bedfellow of religion -- but in this case the religion is atheism.

 

However, scientists come from different backgrounds. Different religions or no religion at all. And who a scientist is at home and where science exists are 2 entirely different places.

 

But that scientists can have such diverse personal beliefs means that science is compatible with those beliefs. So, even tho you are an atheist, you can honestly present science as being compatible with theism. No lie there, is there?

 

The marriage of science and religion is not done by science, though it is done by scientists at home and, unfortunately, by outsiders who take it out of context. This marriage is a cultural one and not a methodological one, as it is common for anyone to measure new ideas against what they already know, primarly given to them by their culture - which of course includes religion. It's simply done by unneccessary and unhappy accident, and it would be the best for both to be permanantly seperated and have no affect on the statements of the other.

 

I already stated that Methodological Materialism -- how we conduct experiments -- prevents us from directly testing for the supernatural. But I submit that you are letting your prejudices get the better of you. The "marriage" of science and religion, or interaction of science and religion if you prefer, is not just a cultural one nor done by "unnecessary and unhappy accident". That the supernatural exists and that it is necessary for the material processes to work is a valid scientific hypothesis. It's just that the methods of science are incapable of testing that hypothesis. Doesn't mean the hypothesis is unimportant.

 

Gould proposed NOMA, but Dawkins argues that it is not possible. What science does is going to impact religion. And the existence of data outside of science that leads to religion impacts science. What's more, the morality of religion impacts science, because science itself has no morality. Science must get morality from outside science.

 

Science is agnostic because it has no choice. It's methods force it to be agnostic. But science would still like an answer. We as scientists can't know all about the universe unless and until science can decide whether or not the supernatural exists and whether or not is necessary for the material methods we find in science to work. Of course, science may never be able to decide. But we as scientists learn to live with unanswered questions. Or, at least, you have better be learning that in school. Some questions take longer to answer than others.

 

In the meantime, in order to defend science effectively against attack by a particular religion -- Fundamentalism -- we have to be able to show that science does not threaten God. Otherwise, if we don't comment the Fundies are going to use politics to define science the way they want so that God is not threatened.

[silkworm]

However, thru most of the history of science, science has been viewed as figuring out how God works/created. Thus, science is not an enemy of, nor completely separate from, religion.

 

(I never said that you said science has to consult a religious text either, I was just trying to illustrate my point)

 

I very much see your point here, but don't you agree that religion is not required here, it simply predates the scientific method, thus leads to its insertion? And the way God works is the subsitute for the way nature operates at the time? The God part is unneccessary.

 

Even today, Dawkins use of science to bolster atheism and bash theism is having science be a bedfellow of religion -- but in this case the religion is atheism.

 

I agree, and I wish he wouldn't. He needs to divorce them as well, but he has a chip on his shoulder. Ironically, he's giving religion a podium in science by doing so.

 

But that scientists can have such diverse personal beliefs means that science is compatible with those beliefs. So, even tho you are an atheist, you can honestly present science as being compatible with theism. No lie there, is there?

 

No, no lie there, however, and you pointed this out earlier (and it is true) that my atheism has nothing to do with science. Whether or not science is compatible with my personal beliefs (or lack thereof) is moot to me because I divorce the too. When I view a scientific argument I see if it's scientifically valid before I try to put it into perspective in my personal life.

 

We as scientists can't know all about the universe unless and until science can decide whether or not the supernatural exists and whether or not is necessary for the material methods we find in science to work.

 

Science used to be defined here as the use of natural explainations for phenoma. I take that to mean that science is limited by the bounds of nature. If there is a supernatural force it is outside the realm of science, because as you said, it can not be tested.

 

In the meantime, in order to defend science effectively against attack by a particular religion -- Fundamentalism -- we have to be able to show that science does not threaten God. Otherwise, if we don't comment the Fundies are going to use politics to define science the way they want so that God is not threatened.

 

I agree, but I leave religion out of it. I just say what science is and what it says and let them come to their own conclusions. Besides, it's harder to shake that way.

[lucaspa]

They are there for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith, as a student of science I am naturally interested in the argument if one is presented, but when it's not I let them know. I don't go to these functions at church services, this is a public university. I do put my beliefs (or lack thereof) aside,

 

I am beginning to doubt that. Because you won't reassure the audience that science doesn't attack their faith. Let's face it, you have beliefs. You believe God does not exist. You believe all the physical processes discovered by science work on their own. That they don't need a supernatural component.

 

What you are doing is good, but it is not sufficient. As you noted, for the audience the issue is only secondary that Lucas' particular scientific theories are wrong. The real important thing is that Lucas is telling them that the currently valid scientific theories attack their faith. You aren't telling them differently.

 

I attend simply as a student of science. I refuse to lie to my own people, and if my atheism is exposed and becomes an issue I will simply say, "I was raised christian, I am a midwesterner, I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you. I'm here as a student of science Everything I say about textbook science can be verified by science textbooks."

 

Let me make a suggestion. Say "Yes, my personal belief is atheism. However, that belief is not part of science. Science is neutral about belief in God. Many, many scientists are theists. They view science as telling them how God works. I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you, and I had to speak because these people are lying to you. They are lying about specific theories in science. The theories are not what they say they are. You can look for yourself by reading science textbooks."

 

Now, is there any dishonesty in that?

 

I think that says what I meant, but just in case I'll put it another way. He goes up there and says something silly, I'm not going to go up there and say something silly back, I'm going to simply say, that's silly.

 

That's more understandable, but can you give me a concrete example of what you consider "something silly"?

 

Richard Dawkins and Jay Gould said that taking part in these "debates" gives the creationist side validity, a podium, that they wouldn't have otherwise. Sounds logical, so scientists generally avoid functions like these to avoid giving this ridiculousness merit. ... However, ignoring this problem only makes it worse, by the tea party reference I believe that the Dawkins Method is correct if you say, "This isn't good tea, the tea is too sweet," instead of saying, "There is no tea here."

 

I tend to agree, which is why I'm trying to help you instead of discouraging you. If scientists don't show up, then the public hears only one side. But Dawkins and Gould have a good point: debates don't decide truth and the creationists can "win" a debate by being better debators, thus giving credibility to creationism. It's a risk.

 

If I understand Dawkins correctly, it is what I advocate: treat creationism like what it really is: a scientific theory. Show how it is false, just like you would any other scientific theory.

 

I know but agnosticism and atheism are one in the same to this audience, as are Judaism, Islam, and any other nonchristian belief (even to a small extent catholicism). This is generally an evangelical crowd. Whether or not the audience knows the difference in definitions is moot, any nonprotestant belief is seen as atheism here, as is pointed out by many specific examples both at these meetings and many church services/conversations with evangelicals I have attended in the past.

 

You keep highlighting how important religion is to this crowd. But then say you are going to avoid the religious implications! Unless you meet the religious concerns head-on and defuse them, I submit your scientific arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. As long as they view science as atheism, you've "lost". You are going to have to insist that science is neutral toward religion. It doesn't back theism (particularly their version of it) but it doesn't back atheism, either.

 

If you are going to educate them on correct versions of specific theories, you might as well educate them on correct philosophical terms.

 

Unless, of course, you really believe science falsifies religion and mandates atheism?

[silkworm]

Originally Posted by silkworm

They are there for some sort of scientific affirmation of their faith' date=' as a student of science I am naturally interested in the argument if one is presented, but when it's not I let them know. I don't go to these functions at church services, this is a public university. I do put my beliefs (or lack thereof) aside,

 

I am beginning to doubt that. Because you won't reassure the audience that science doesn't attack their faith. Let's face it, you have beliefs. You believe God does not exist. You believe all the physical processes discovered by science work on their own. That they don't need a supernatural component.

 

What you are doing is good, but it is not sufficient. As you noted, for the audience the issue is only secondary that Lucas' particular scientific theories are wrong. The real important thing is that Lucas is telling them that the currently valid scientific theories attack their faith. You aren't telling them differently.[/quote']

 

By telling the audience that science does not comment on the existence of God, telling them I'm a student of science, and doing my best to say that the science presented is misrepresented generally does the trick. When I make the speaker lose his credibility, he loses his credibility. When I gain my credibility, I gain my credibility. Sometimes I offer that if anyone tried to take their religion away from them I'd fight for their right to their religion because I don't believe in imposing on anyone's freedom. That's as far as I go, and I think it works.

 

Quote:

I attend simply as a student of science. I refuse to lie to my own people' date=' and if my atheism is exposed and becomes an issue I will simply say, "I was raised christian, I am a midwesterner, I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you. I'm here as a student of science Everything I say about textbook science can be verified by science textbooks."

 

Let me make a suggestion. Say "Yes, my personal belief is atheism. However, that belief is not part of science. Science is neutral about belief in God. Many, many scientists are theists. They view science as telling them how God works. I am one of you, and most importantly, I refuse to lie to you, and I had to speak because these people are lying to you. They are lying about specific theories in science. The theories are not what they say they are. You can look for yourself by reading science textbooks."

 

Now, is there any dishonesty in that?[/quote']

 

Neutral is a fantastic word.

 

Quote:

I think that says what I meant' date=' but just in case I'll put it another way. He goes up there and says something silly, I'm not going to go up there and say something silly back, I'm going to simply say, that's silly.

 

That's more understandable, but can you give me a concrete example of what you consider "something silly"?[/quote']

 

My favorite example comes from a creationist video, A Question of Origins. It says, "If birds came from reptiles, as evolutionists claim, who did the first bird mate with?" The way to give them a podium is to say we have fossils, or to talk about morphology, anything except what I did. I simply said (and I had to repeat myself 3 times before I got some concessions) is say, "That's a misrepresenation of the theory of evolution. That statement implies that a reptile suddenly gave birth to a bird, fully formed as a bird who had to wait for a mate. That's nonsense and no one who understands evolution would ever endorse that. (Then I go on to explain who traits spread through a population and gradually a population of the reptiles gradually become a population of birds and mate with each other along the way (sorry I had did a "long story short here")." I put it all in practical terms and I know it introduced a few people to a valid explaination of how evolution works for the first time. I didn't debate. I don't debate. I just do that.

 

And this appears to do it. People are generally pissed when they're lied to about something, and these creationists doing it are attacking people's faith, not me. This one girl that approached me after the meeting was so angry she was shaking and mumbling and had tears in her eyes with clenched fists. She wasn't pissed at me though. I just sat down with her and talked with her a little bit and in that conversation I'm sure I did say something about science having nothing to do with her faith, that the botched presentation or what I said should not affect it. I don't know how much it helped her because she was apparently deeply bothered. Having this information misrepresented to them genuinely bothers them, this has been my experience.

 

But Dawkins and Gould have a good point: debates don't decide truth and the creationists can "win" a debate by being better debators, thus giving credibility to creationism. It's a risk.

 

I agree if that were the case, but I also don't see a debate as possible until the two sides meet. In order to have a scientific argument, which I will gladly participate in, the other side has to bring a valid one and present a valid scientific argument. Scientific terms must be used and used correctly. If they want to make it theological, I can't participate because that is not my area. I don't drink the tea, I just say there isn't any.

 

You keep highlighting how important religion is to this crowd. But then say you are going to avoid the religious implications! Unless you meet the religious concerns head-on and defuse them' date=' I submit your scientific arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. As long as they view science as atheism, you've "lost". You are going to have to insist that science is neutral toward religion. It doesn't back theism (particularly their version of it) but it doesn't back atheism, either.

 

If you are going to educate them on correct versions of specific theories, you might as well educate them on correct philosophical terms.

 

Unless, of course, you really believe science falsifies religion and mandates atheism?[/quote']

 

I believe that science will only do so only if the believer uses science to do so on his or her own, it's not science's place. It's like using a butterknife for a screwdriver, it works only if you want it to, but it really is just meant in uses for the kitchen.

 

And I'm not going to refer to science as a person because it is not. Of course it doesn't have a religion, it also doesn't have a favorite baseball team or style of music. I also make sure to point that out, but I also don't participate in theological discussions.

 

On top of me not having the authority to speak on religion because I don't have one is the fact that if I do, that's what the argument becomes, an interpretation of science based on a theological debate, instead of a scientific argument deciding scientific interpretations.

[silkworm]

lucaspa, thanks again for those files. It was interesting to see "Mein Kampf" referenced in that area. I really have to struggle to keep a nerve from getting touched when I have to explain that I do not endorse Hitler. I generally use a different approach where we both agree that Hitler was an a-hole, neither one of us like him, and he's not a scientist.

 

I'd also like to put this Gobineau into better perspective. Was he influencal? Do you have anything in his own words about "Darwinism"?

[silkworm]

Well, thanks for the help everyone except this meeting was pretty uneventful. There weren't many people and Dr. Lucas did not join the meeting due to technical limitations, which are being worked out and he most likely will join us in two weeks.

 

I recapped the meeting here:http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/06/02/recap-of-june-1st-corr-meeting/

[Radical Edward]

pointing out how stupid many designs are:

 

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm

 

or how some really evil things have been designed

 

http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/

 

can also help

[GutZ]

hehe It's funny how people get mad when logic traps them into a corner.

[Martin]

Congrats on staying the course, silkworm. Probably takes some determination to stand up to an organized crew of whatevers like them, because anything could happen. They might have shown up in droves and booed. But you indicate it was comparatively peaceful this time. Good.

 

Radical I am very glad to see you around.

 

pointing out how stupid many designs are:

 

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm

 

or how some really evil things have been designed

 

http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/

 

can also help

 

Be it known that Rad Ed, one of the cooler SFN personages IMHO, was who started the ASTRONOMY LINKS sticky

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=54588&postcount=2

 

because in ancient times he had powers which enabled him to do things like that. And this sticky became an SFN reference library for handy astro stuff.

 

the sticky was eventually taken over and organized by ALEXA who had the sexiest avatar picture that anyone has ever used at SFN as far as I know.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=82264&postcount=25

 

therefore I think it is a good omen that after a fairly long interval like a year I see Radical Edward posts, and also, after some similarly protracted absence, posts by the honest and consistent christian LUCASPA (with whom i do not agree about several things but who, in my eyes, is eminently respectable.)

 

It is appropriate at this time to invoke the mighty GRIN sign:

 

[Phi for All]

Radical Edward and Jakiri showing back up at the same time? I'm stunned. Glad but stunned.

 

It's almost as if it were designed by the hand of a higher power....

 

 

 

 

I refer, of course, to Sayonara³.

[silkworm]

pointing out how stupid many designs are:

 

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm

 

or how some really evil things have been designed

 

http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/

 

can also help

 

Thanks for the links radical edward, although I never liked the "poor design" argument. If it works, it works. But many of my friends love the poor design argument.

 

ALSO! Some very important information has been brought to my attention regarding "him". Some very damning evidence indeed, that is very neutral in both regards to science and religion and I'm certain the audience will accept it readily. There are no worries about him now, I'll be able to end the meeting at will. I wish I could disclose it, however I can't until after his return. It will be in my pocket ready to trump until then.

[lucaspa]

Well' date=' thanks for the help everyone except this meeting was pretty uneventful. There weren't many people and Dr. Lucas did not join the meeting due to technical limitations, which are being worked out and he most likely will join us in two weeks.

 

I recapped the meeting here:http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/06/02/recap-of-june-1st-corr-meeting/

 

For your help next time. I noticed this quote from Dr. Spock:

Spock's book Baby and Child Care (1946):

 

"Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish…"

 

This is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". It was never part of Darwin's theory of evolution. This was a hypothesis advanced by Ernst Haeckel. Darwin's idea was the similar species had similar embryology and that embryology contained remnants of evolutionary history. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is that the embryo goes thru the adult forms of all its evolutionary ancestors. This was shown false even as Haeckel proposed it since embryos do not go thru the adult forms of evolutionary ancestors. The theory is so wrong that Haeckel had to fabricate his drawings of embryos. You can get some more info here

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html Haeckel's drawings

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo1.html More Haeckel

 

""Evolutionists can not explain how this can happen by chance.""

 

You did well in not letting Menton get away with this. As you pointed out: EVOLUTION IS NOT CHANCE. Natural selection is not chance. The "selection" part of natural seleciton is the opposite of chance; it is pure determinism.

 

Next time, you might want to say: Variations are random with regard to the needs of the individual or the population. In a climate growing colder, just as many deer with shorter fur will be born as those with longer fur. But ONLY the deer with longer fur will survive the colder weather. That's not chance, it's design. Natural selection is an algorithm to get design. That is, follow the steps and design is guaranteed.

[lucaspa]

pointing out how stupid many designs are:

 

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm

 

or how some really evil things have been designed

 

http://winace.andkon.com/designed_organisms/

 

can also help

 

This is the theological argument against creationism (which silkworm doesn't like to get into). It was the poor, stupid, and sadistic designs in nature that got Special Creation (creationism, ID) in theological trouble in the period 1830-1859.

 

Yes, IF God is directly designing/manufacturing each organism, then God becomes directly responsible for all those designs. This means that God is sadistic, stupid, and has Alzheimer's. This is theologically unacceptable. Modern day creationists are not as honest as their 19th century counterparts; they don't look at the bad designs, but only the ones they want to look at. The creationists then did not hide from data.

 

However, natural selection got God off the hook. Now God is no longer directly responsible for the designs -- natural selection is. It is one reason why so many clergy bolted from Special Creation and accepted evolution by natural selection.

 

This joke illustrates the theological problem of Intelligent Design and God as an engineer:

 

Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer. The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

[lucaspa]

lucaspa' date=' thanks again for those files. It was interesting to see "Mein Kampf" referenced in that area. I really have to struggle to keep a nerve from getting touched when I have to explain that I do not endorse Hitler. I generally use a different approach where we both agree that Hitler was an a-hole, neither one of us like him, and he's not a scientist.

 

I'd also like to put this Gobineau into better perspective. Was he influencal? Do you have anything in his own words about "Darwinism"?[/quote']

 

As the links in the file indicate, Gobineau was very influential in setting Nazi policy! In fact, that's where the policy came from, not Darwin. I haven't found any direct quotes of Gobineau about Darwin. Not much of Gobineau's letters are widely available (if they are available at all) and his major work was done before Darwin. So there is no book by Gobineau post-Darwin where he might have commented in print on Darwin and evolution.

 

Another approach is to say that evil people will corrupt ANY idea for their purpose. Racists corrupted evolution, too. Darwinism was first very anti-racist. However, it didn't take long for Virchow, Spencer, and others to corrupt Darwinism into Social Darwinism to support racism. So BOTH Christianity and Darwinism was twisted to support racism.

 

Also, look at how the Prince of Peace has been used over the centuries as justification for wars! People wanted a war, so they misused Jesus and Christianity to justify one.

[lucaspa]

also, after some similarly protracted absence, posts by the honest and consistent christian LUCASPA (with whom i do not agree about several things but who, in my eyes, is eminently respectable.)

 

"eminently respectable"?? What the hell is that?

 

And why is my personal belief highlighted instead of my profession?

 

BTW, you are not required to agree about my personal beliefs. However, unless you have contrary data, you do have to agree to the science I present.

[Martin]

"eminently respectable"?? What the hell is that?

 

And why is my personal belief highlighted instead of my profession?

 

BTW' date=' you are not required to agree about my personal beliefs. However, unless you have contrary data, you do have to agree to the science I present. [/quote']

 

Yeah, I like the science side. You list an interest in "tissue engineering" plus fine qualifications. All well and good!

 

However we have this chronic tropism of people making arguments to reconcile the Nicene Creed and or Biblical authority with science.

Maybe it is important for people to do that----I don't know.

What stands out for me, because i perceive it as exceptional, is that you are or seem to me very FORTHRIGHT

You come across as an honest Christian rather than as an inept quibbling apologist.

I even suspect that you see that part of eventually saving and elevating CHRISTIAN VALUES would involve abandoning Biblical authority----but that is what I suspect. I dont want to impute any statement to you.

 

Being an intelligent welltrained scientist is not so rare, in my experience, and i would respect that without saying so.

 

Impressing me as a philosophically consistent straightforward Christian who can be interested in modern research in cosmology and stuff like that is rare so I DO say I respect it.

 

Some people are always worrying about where God fits in. So it sticks out like a sore thumb and hangs them up. they can't look at models of the big bang objectively because they are so worried if this is good for God or bad for God or exactly what God had to do with it. How I picture you is that you are so confident and comfortable about your religion that it never occurs to you to wonder. You are not that kind of naive Literalist.

 

Maybe that is an idealization and you have the same trouble reconciling stuff that other people seem to and the same deep inconsistencies. I didnt look with a magnifying glass. Utlimately I only have superficial impressions. But that is how it looks to me. So yeah, I say I respect this. Make no bones about it.

 

[EDIT]

Oh BTW I believe I disagree with you. But that is secondary