Milton's "smoking gun"

[lucaspa]

It has been argued that Richard Milton in Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is NOT a creationist and is not arguing for creationism.

 

Well, thanks to the Advocate we have the smoking gun to refute this:

 

Milton states:

 

"The fallacies on which this case is constructed are not very profound but they do need to be nailed down. The most important fallacy in this argument is the idea that somehow a result has occurred which is independent of, or in some way beyond the engineers, who merely set the machine going by pressing a button. Of course, the fact is that a human agency has designed and built the computer and programmed it to perform the task in question. This begs the only important question in evolution theory: could complex structures have arisen spontaneously by random natural processes without any precursor? Like all other computer simulation experiments, this one actually makes a case for special creation because it specifically requires a Creator to build the computer and think up and implement the programme in the first place."

 

Look at what I bolded. Special creation = creationism. And again, this argument is one consistently used by IDers/creationists. You can find it on AiG!

 

So the Advocate's attempt to say

And no. Milton is being ironic, he's not arguing Creationism vs Darwinism.

is unconvincing. If he was not arguing that, then why say it?

 

the Advocate, if you really think this was "ironic", then please post some quote from Milton that would lead us to think so.

[ydoaPs]

Don't forget the capitalization of "Creator". They even capitalize pronouns when talking about Him.

[Mr Skeptic]

No surprise there.

[the advocate]

It has been argued that Richard Milton in Shattering the Myths of Darwinism is NOT a creationist and is not arguing for creationism.

 

Well, thanks to the Advocate we have the smoking gun to refute this:

 

 

If you are serious about being objective and uncovering religious biases, you would be forced to consider the religious beliefs many of the principle defenders of Darwinism, past and present. Not just those who oppose the theory. If for example you found a disproportionate number of atheists defending the theory, would you question their findings? Should an atheist be assumed to be any more objective than a theist?

 

While the hobby of unmasking creationists may be a welcome escape from the harsh realities of defending a paradigm in crisis, the Darwinian theory will ultimately stand or fall based on the evidence. Not personal accusations. Paradigm shifts do not necessarily depend on the "conversion" of scientists steeped in past prejudices whether religious or antireligious.

 

Many paradigm shifts are facilitated by young scientists or those who are new to the field. They will not waste time learning the complex aplologetic arguments used to defend theories, but will instead prefer to survey the problems and propose often radical new solutiuons, given half a chance.

 

I apologise in advance for my reliance on Wikipedia. The entry for the phrase "smoking gun" begins with the paragraph:

 

"The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. In addition to this, its meaning has evolved to uses completely unrelated criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favour of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called smoking gun evidence. "

 

It seems that Milton's book, while not evidence of a crime as such, does indeed appear to be a smoking gun. It points to the hypothesis that Darwinism is a paradigm in crisis. You have unwittingly chosen a very appropriate title for this thread!

[foodchain]

If you are serious about being objective and uncovering religious biases, you would be forced to consider the religious beliefs many of the principle defenders of Darwinism, past and present. Not just those who oppose the theory. If for example you found a disproportionate number of atheists defending the theory, would you question their findings? Should an atheist be assumed to be any more objective than a theist?

 

While the hobby of unmasking creationists may be a welcome escape from the harsh realities of defending a paradigm in crisis, the Darwinian theory will ultimately stand or fall based on the evidence. Not personal accusations. Paradigm shifts do not necessarily depend on the "conversion" of scientists steeped in past prejudices whether religious or antireligious.

 

Many paradigm shifts are facilitated by young scientists or those who are new to the field. They will not waste time learning the complex aplologetic arguments used to defend theories, but will instead prefer to survey the problems and propose often radical new solutiuons, given half a chance.

 

I apologise in advance for my reliance on Wikipedia. The entry for the phrase "smoking gun" begins with the paragraph:

 

"The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. In addition to this, its meaning has evolved to uses completely unrelated criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favour of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called smoking gun evidence. "

 

It seems that Milton's book, while not evidence of a crime as such, does indeed appear to be a smoking gun. It points to the hypothesis that Darwinism is a paradigm in crisis. You have unwittingly chosen a very appropriate title for this thread!

 

 

There is no crisis to the reality of organic evolution. In fact I would say the only crisis in all reality is with the people that cant deal with the existence of evolution really. I mean then the other way to say it is science as a whole, which is in agreement with evolution, only holds onto the idea because it is false and has no proof and really Milton should be getting a Noble prize right now. This “paradigm” as you would label it which I am sure is a legal term in some manner of the term has lasted the test of time so far in regards to countless empirical experiments, observations and methodologies ranging from various disciplines of science. This means chiefly physics, chemistry, and of course biology and related aggregates of such a whole which have studied evolution have found nothing but support for it. The sheer volume of this information is I think impossible to keep up with or even record on an individual level what exists. This is a cruel farce at the hands of immature people and it really needs to be remolded into something at least sane if not rational though I don’t know if you can separate those two. I

 

In reality though there is no smoking gun for creationism. There is however the ability to see creationist jargon, a smoking gun does indeed exist for that. I guess it would be funny to try to equate why the Roman culture was the way it was with all the wars in stuff in ancient time but I guess you would have to be hard fighting all of those dinosaurs.

[lucaspa]

If you are serious about being objective and uncovering religious biases, you would be forced to consider the religious beliefs many of the principle defenders of Darwinism, past and present.

 

Distraction. The claim was that Milton was not a creationist. This has been refuted and you have not argued it. Milton gave false witness about his motives.

 

No one ever claimed that some of the defenders of Darwinismdo not have religious biases. Nor did I ever claim that occasionally atheistic evolutionists went beyond the science and mistakenly claimed that evolution, and science, says that deity does not exist.

 

Not just those who oppose the theory. If for example you found a disproportionate number of atheists defending the theory, would you question their findings?

 

I have. For instance, on this board I have questioned that Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory is correct. I have also refuted Dawkins' claim that the unit of selection is the gene. Enst Mayr (an agnostic) has also refuted this. Many scientists have called atheistic evolutionists to task when they have misrepresented what science can conclude. I refer you to an excellent book called Science Held Hostage. It is out of print, but you can still get used copies.

 

I also refer you to this article by Eugenie Scott -- an avowed atheist -- discussing the limits of science to other atheists: Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998.

 

While the hobby of unmasking creationists may be a welcome escape from the harsh realities of defending a paradigm in crisis, the Darwinian theory will ultimately stand or fall based on the evidence.

 

Of course. However, why is it that creationists feel the need to disguise their motives and try to tell us they are not creationists? Dawkins does not disguise himself as a creationist in order to put forward bogus arguments against creationism and say "I used to be a creationist, but the evidence against creationism convinced me to change my mind."

 

Paradigm shifts do not necessarily depend on the "conversion" of scientists steeped in past prejudices whether religious or antireligious.

 

1. Ironically, in the original Kuhnian version, paradigm shifts do depend on the "conversion" of scientists.

 

2. Historically, the paradigm shift from creationism to evolution occurred, of course, among scientists who were religious and devoted to creationism. Remember, Darwin started out the voyage on the Beagle as an ardent creationist! It was the evidence that convinced him otherwise.

 

So, the real irony here is that you are advocating a "paradigm shift" back to a paradigm that has already been abandoned.

 

Many paradigm shifts are facilitated by young scientists or those who are new to the field. They will not waste time learning the complex aplologetic arguments used to defend theories, but will instead prefer to survey the problems and propose often radical new solutiuons, given half a chance.

 

I apologise in advance for my reliance on Wikipedia. The entry for the phrase "smoking gun" begins with the paragraph:

 

It seems that Milton's book, while not evidence of a crime as such, does indeed appear to be a smoking gun. It points to the hypothesis that Darwinism is a paradigm in crisis. You have unwittingly chosen a very appropriate title for this thread!

 

ROFL! Beautiful rhetorical duck. I really have to applaud your effort. Of course, the title refers to the words of Milton uncovering his lie that he is not a creationist. You never even tried to quote any parts of Milton's book to back up your claim that Milton was being ironic.

 

Your post was not a very gracious surrender, but I accept it nonetheless.

 

In reality though there is no smoking gun for creationism.

 

Oh no! There are a LOT of "smoking guns" showing creationism to be wrong. Just as we have a "smoking gun" showing Milton is really a creationist despite the claim to the contrary.

[MrMongoose]

A good argument always makes note of the greatest counterarguments. Him saying that there is reason to believe something does not mean he believes it.