Ben Stein withdraws as UVM commencement speaker after outcry over intelligent design
posted at 8:54 pm on February 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
Ben Stein described the brouhaha over his selection as commencement speaker at the University of Vermont as “laughable” on Tuesday called the whole episode “pathetic.”…
“I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists,” Stein said later in an e-mail. “I want all scientific inquiry to happen — not just what the ruling clique calls science.”
Stein’s comments came a day after UVM President Dan Fogel announced that Stein, whom Fogel had invited to address UVM’s commencement in May, would not be coming after all. Fogel said that his selection of Stein generated an intense protest, that he received hundreds of angry e-mails over the weekend, and that after he shared these “profound concerns” with Stein, Stein “immediately and most graciously declined our commencement invitation.”…
Stein called the university’s response to the furor “chicken sh**, and you can quote me on that.”
“I like Dr. Fogel,” Stein wrote, “and feel sorry he is caught in the meat grinder of political correctness. My heart goes out to him. He’s a great guy trying to do his best in difficult circumstances.”
I don’t care that he’s a creationist any more than I’d care if he were a phrenologist. It’s goofy, but so long as he doesn’t turn the speech into a lecture on the subject, I’m willing to tolerate his eccentricity. What I wouldn’t tolerate is his egregious bad-faith attempt to equate Darwinism with social Darwinism. Why would an audience filled with scientists and science majors want to be addressed by a guy who believes “science leads you to killing people”? Better yet, why would that guy want to address them? It’d be like inviting a liberal who believes conservatism is inherently racist to guest-blog on Hot Air. I get enough flak for linking HuffPo occasionally in Headlines that I can imagine how that’d go down with our readers.
Exit question: Can it really be that we’re creeping up on 9 p.m. on the east coast without a post yet on this from LGF?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next »
Yeah, but really cool action figures that make atom bombs and porn.
The best ones seem to be in the headlines.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Well I don’t know what work is being done there, but we have forced evolutionary changes in organisms before:
antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Does that make us God?
I don’t think so.
Does that mean that God may not wave his hand and make changes?
I wouldn’t pretend to know.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Yeah, I just caught the one about the giant boobs. The headlines are always fun to read.
Anna on February 4, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I figured you were joking. But I think I have to say it for the benefit of some irrational posters here.
I realize those scientists exist. Doesn’t mean their data is worthless. Perhaps we need to re-examine their conclusions & their motives, though.
PEER REVIEW WORKS when it is done right.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Like TJ knew what he was talking about! LOL!
Say did TJ ever provide any sort to enumeration for his nonsense which could pass a modern laugh test?
.
errr … “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, … have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned” TJ’s talkin thru his anti-Papist hat. You do know MB4 that the Founders inherited many of their bigotries from the English Reformation which produced one of the world’s most virulent anti-Catholic cultures. Why don’t you write this bile of as further evidence of TJ’s many character flaws?
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Certainly, which is why I’m glad you wrote it. I hate it when people knee-jerkingly rail on Christians, but I hate it more when Christians do things that prove they deserve it.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
When was the last time that Media Matters had 1103 comments?… probably never.
Glenn Jericho on February 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Not a chance? That is a statement that is either factually correct or incorrect. You are conveying certainty while possessing a knowledge deficit with regard to what I may or may not do.
With OOP, frequently the developer of an object has no idea how the object might be used. The object oriented principle of modularity and exposing interfaces enables the object to be used in systems which meet requirements that don’t yet exist. The object might also be inherited multiple times by classes that reuse the original functionality but add to it, again in ways that are unimagined by the original developer.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Read my comment closely. I’m not talking about micro evolution. We have seen micro evolution in nature and we have made it happen in the lab. But, large-scale evolution (i.e., one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal) has not been done. And, even if we were able to force something like this in the laboratory, it would be more supportive of the theory that intelligence drives such changes rather than natural forces.
NuclearPhysicist on February 4, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Cripes. I need a hand augmentation.
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Gould wrote that transition fossils are rare, not that they don’t exist. And that’s not disputed, as far as I know. It’s true, transitional forms are rare, because the fossil record is necessarily incomplete. Now you know, Gould did not say that there were no transitional forms.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM
What was the change? Killing off one population of bacteria to allow another.. which had preexisting resistance to the substance..to flourish, doesn’t seem to be the same thing as “adaptation” or any real change in anything.
Itchee Dryback on February 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
One animal turning into another animal-
How ’bout one plant turning into another plant?
We’ve done it. Nectarine? etc?
Now maybe that doesn’t fit the official version of one organism turning into another-to me it basically does.
We have no way of knowing/proving whether God physically directs the evolution of each new animal or the creation of each new animal.
So macro not = micro in these cases may not garner enough proof from the data.
But God can certainly ‘direct’ the ‘creation’ of organisms through his ‘setting’ of the natural laws the world turns by.
Are these laws ALWAYS consistent? Who knows. Maybe on planet X they are not. But many certainly are here.
And experience and observation and other data (at least in my field) shows macro very often DOES = micro.
Maybe it does in biology.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I’ve got to fix those gramatical errors …
*
Corrected from as:
*
Even here you fall short. The Bible story of the fall of Jericho is a literary re-presentation of an earlier proto-Israeli conveyance of historical “fact”. Some sort of Jericho fell. The proto-Israelis conveyed that story of its fall by way of stylized re-enactment and mythic oral history. This first story was later re-worked into literary form. And as is the case with such things, the actual dates don’t convey accurately.
.
It’s a bit like learning your history of the Battle Gettysburg by listening to a storyteller who himself learned of this battle solely by observing much later re-enactments.
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM
From scratch is a tall order. What about the work Craig Venter’s current work with synthetic bacteria. Would that count, at least partially, if successful?
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Change in the genetic population of resistant vs non-resistant. Both still exist, but resistant bacteria for certain diseases are gaining numbers in the gene pool bcs in some cases, that is the only one left to reproduce.
Evolution = change in gene frequencies in a population’s genetic pool.
That is change.
BTW-the resistance wasn’t necessarily pre-existing. Bacteria can develop resistant mutations as a response to some environmental factor.
Viruses do it all the time (though they are not ‘alive’).
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM
And HA certainly has more than its share of these.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Is there reason to believe it’ll be successful? I don’t know if it would count, but it would be a little impressive.
I would think that even if ID is total bunk, that using what we believe of evolution, if we can create a life form, then surely we could guide the process and speed it up a little.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
but this object has certain inputs and outputs…how does evolution know to hook up these diverse objects with their inputs and outputs to do anything?
how does evolution even construct these objects in the first place??
it takes intelligence to use these objects, or they are just useless pieces of code.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM
and why would evolution produce these useless objects, assuming it could…would they just sit around until something else ‘evolves’ to use them?? there is a price to creating these objects, it takes energy…
what would be the advantage for an organism to evolve ‘objects’ that are not useful at the present, and would most likely be detrimental because this ‘object’ has to be created and maintained, and that takes a certain amount of energy that the organism cannot use in other more useful ways…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Mark Steyn Obit. on Francis Crick. Good reading. I never can get enough of Steyn
kirkill on February 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM
HUH? You speak of evolution as if it is a living, breathing thing.
It’s just a theory.
Who says God didn’t set up the dominoes & they’re falling according to His original placement of the dominoes?!
This thinking is just philosophical. It really gets you know where.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
yeah I know, in another 150 years or so, we’ll be able to PROVE evolution once and for all…sigh..
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
So if I distill salt from ocean water, that means that intelligence drives such changes rather than natural forces, right?
If I condense steam, that supports the theory that when it rains God is crying.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Well I don’t think anything that has ‘evolved’ was ever useless at one point. Everything at some point has a use.
Even rotary dial phones & 8-track tapes.
But we don’t really use that stuff anymore bcs there’s better stuff out there.
Doesn’t mean some hippy somewhere isn’t keeping the 8-track revolution alive, however.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
According to Wiki (not always the best source, I’ll admit) the Nectarine is not only NOT a different kind of fruit it is also the same species of peach.
Its only a variation due to a gene defect.
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
That’s why I wrote
Are those creation stories more plausible than the Genesis version, which surmises that the world was formed at the snap of fingers in “seven days” by the omnipotent wizard in the sky? Or or they basically all versions of the same bedtime story?
Science has offered explanations for this, too. I find it ironic that some of those who appear to believe in the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing creator who was sitting around for eternity until he decided one day to create everything just spoke words and then everything came be are the same ones that scoff at scientists who propose (based on observation of the movement of stars and matter in space across time and distances, as well as the ) that the universe as we know it started with a massive stellar explosion that threw all matter outward – matter whose trajectory can be observed empirically with today’s technology.
At least the big bang proponents can say “cosmic body (X) is moving in this direction in relation to others, and they’re all moving away from each other.” The creationist response seems to be an abdication of reason (who are we to know how or why?, etc.). One seeks to document empirically, the other seems to want to deny any potential meaning in those observations, save they’re attributed to the divine, unknowable will of some mystic and inexplicable skyfather who “has a plan.”
ID/creationism just seems to me like an intellectual cop out.
Actually, there have been explanations offered:
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/library/poster/poster.html
http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/astronomy/origins.htm
Pretending they’re not there doesn’t make them go away.
Good Lt on February 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
you need to follow the thread of the conversation…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
If you know, then you knowingly misrepresented his position.
The evidence for evolution goes beyond the fossil record, and even goes beyond transitional forms within the fossil record. The question isn’t whether the fossil record is complete, but whether what little we have confirms evolution, and it does.
I’m not saying that’s sufficient to demonstrate evolution, but it certainly doesn’t disprove it.
As you know, there are many other lines of evidence. I don’t really care that you reject every single one. I mean, geez, you’d think those stupid biologists would get something right every once in a while. Thank God we have creationists to point out that every single advancement in the last 150 years of evolutionary biology is wrong.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
now you have to lie about me…I quoted him. I didn’t misrepresent anything.
it obviously does not. gould didn’t think so…thus ‘punctuated equilibrium’ neither does that other scientist I quote..thus the ‘biological big bang’
of course gould still believed in evolution…he’s an atheist…but it just happened very quickly..right…and the difference between ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and a miracle is??? they’re the same.
evolutionary biology is nothing more than storytelling…trying to fit data into darwin’s pardigm.
as I said before, with documentation, evolution is useless in science.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the compiler? Who built the microprocessor and the memory? I don’t know.
Darwin would argue that the objects add interfaces through random mutations (easy enough to model in code) and that the environment then kills most of these mutations. The few interfaces that are useful survive, maybe dominate or exploit new resources in the environment.
I can see how a bottom up approach can increase complexity and diversity. How things came into being in the first place is mysterious.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM
All true. But when it comes to transitional forms in the fossil record, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”; but when it comes to God, absence of evidence IS considered (other than occasional lip service before writing off the whole notion as silly superstition) evidence of absence.
Stephen Hawking, in “A Brief History of Time”, said that he didn’t rule out the possibility of God; but he doubted it, because if God does exist, there’s nothing for him to do, since matter and energy “always” follow natural law. The hole in his argument is staggering!!! We can certainly ascertain what natural laws are, but how can we *prove* that God NEVER intervenes to overrule those natural laws? Hawkings’ logic is circular: God can’t do anything, which we know because God doesn’t do anything, which we know because God doesn’t exist, which we know because God can’t do anything.
I think the thing that most irks religious people is that the anti-religious attitude of “I don’t WANT there to be a God, and you can’t give me absolute evidence of His existence, so I will refuse to consider the possibility.” In any other subject area that’s called denial, but it’s clearly the attitude of many of the “scientific-er than thou” non-believers (just read the last 11 pages and tell me I’m wrong). Or maybe it’s the presumption (without logical basis) that anything that is true must be scientifically provable, and thus the only evidence worthy of consideration is scientific evidence. Obviously, if God DOES exist, and he goes about violating natural law by healing people or creating matter from nothing, there’s no way to scientifically reproduce the results. By definition, God would be scientifically unprovable. So why would we draw ANY conclusion from the fact that science cannot confirm God’s existence?
Some people who do believe in God are in the retaliation business, and that’s a shame; but I see a lot more rage and condescension from the “sola scientifica” folks than from the “sola scriptura” folks.
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Here’s the Darwinist argument and the “suppress the Creationists at all costs”:
You evil, evil people! You dare to believe that mankind is something special! That you are not just an animal! Science PROVES that you are just a lump of flesh worth practically nothing, since there is only a random set of differences between you and a bacteria. You only exist via chance, you have no purpose since it was all an accident to begin with, and once you are dead it’s all over. It’s all in the biology, man. Mankind is nothing but an animal, and deserves to be treated as what he is: an animal. If there IS a God, as we must concede as a possibility, there is nothing more certain than such a God doesn’t care, since we humans are all an accident due to randomness. You are worthless.
What else does Darwinism lead to, but that worldview? The theory of evolution destroys the concept of worth, of life having any meaning. How could we humans be important if we are just an accidental mutation of some primeval apelike being that just happened to start getting some form of thoughts?
The theory of evolution denies any potential for God to care for humans. He didn’t create us, he didn’t do anything to make sure we ended up like this–and suddenly we now merit His love, just because we are monkeys that are slightly smarter than our cousins? Or think we are smarter? Riiiight.
The theory of Godless evolution destroys any dignity for man. It destroys any concept of God loving us. For all practical purposes, it destroys any purpose in life as well, aside from the hedonistic. Survival of the fittest! Red in tooth and claw! If you die, you were too weak to adapt! Change or die!
The theory of evolution reduces mankind to our cells and DNA only. This opens up horrifying prospects of eugenics and suchlike–witness the emerging debate of whether it is ethical to abort a gay baby if a gay gene is conclusively determined. A God who works under the theory of evolution as currently posited is not worth worshipping at all. It destroys any concept of meaningful religion.
And the Darwinists don’t recognize their full frontal assault on the entire concept of who and what mankind is? The implications of holding that humankind is only an animal from random chance or natural selection are staggering. It is no wonder that religions fight against the current theory of evolution. You see, man is NOT just an animal, despite what most democrats think. And the current theory of evolution demands just that: that man is nothing more than an animal. This view is advanced as the scientific truth. And woe betide the poor person who stands up and says, “No, I am more than an animal. I am a child of God, and am worth an infinite amount.” A heretic to the new scientific orthodoxy! No, you are an animal and should act like one! Only that is science! And if it isn’t science, it isn’t true!
Look, evolution as a process, I can buy. Certainly I can think that the building blocks of life were started long ago. The concept that things evolved is not a surprise. But the rejection of any One directing it as a heresy and not worthy to speak about and casting that as a scientific view is a fundamental assault on the very nature of mankind. Darwinists should be aware that they are advocating the total meaningless of life and any purpose for mankind when they mock any concept of there being a Designer.
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I understand that (recessive gene/defect. But it’s all in your definition of what a new species “is”.
In response to Maxx?
Whatever you mean-I assume you are indicating I am not making sense in relation to your perceived topic of discussion, therefore I am not ‘following’ the thread.
I think you must think I’m not smart enough, or my arguments aren’t intelligent enough, to reply to your responses.
After reading most of your comments on this thread, I am thinking I’m beating my head against the wall.
But it’s been a lively discussion.
Thanks for the opportunity.
And thanks for not insulting me outright.
I think I’m done here.
I have a job to get to.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I generally agree with you. For scientists to construct a materialist methodology which yields a sophisticated model to then turn around and say that “There is no God”, “Why?”, “Because he is no where in this model we’ve created”, is rigging the system. Yes, there is no God in the model by definition.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM
but you do know they were designed by intelligence, and they expect a certain input and output.
no one is going to pay you to design an object if they don’t know what its going to be used for..
this is why irreducable complexity is so right…evolution doesn’t just make all these ‘objects’ and wait for something to evolve to put them together…there is a cost to create and maintain these objects in the body…a fitness cost…and if these systems are off just a little bit…like blood clotting, you die.
there is no chance a bottom-up process works, you don’t do it in the real world, if you do develop software, no one pays you to develop an object they are not going to use…or that may have some use in the future..please…and unless you know the exact inputs and outputs of this object you cannot use it in any system…
basically you have to personify evolution, and give it intelligence to design these little objects, and then tie them together…
doesn’t pass the smell test.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Something I thought about last night, after reading some of this thread:
Maybe a lot of the anger/fear/frustration at macroevolution could be overcome just by shifting the viewpoint a bit. Many people fear that removing God from the Creation story ends up making people just another lucky combination of DNA. They feel that this leads to a less value being placed on human life, a degredation of morals, dogs and cats living together, etc.
But you could also look at humanity as a masterpiece of the natural order. Repeated advancements over thousands of years, untold millions of natural genetic mutations, combined over time to create sentient life that was capable of pondering these deep questions. We are the pinnacle of nature’s acheivement. If the world looked at evolution THAT way, society might be very different.
hawksruleva on February 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM
A beautiful dream.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
So if somehow someone could prove to you that there was no God (and evolution does not preclude the existence of God – Pope John Paul II didn’t think so anyway) then you would just dig a hole and crawl in?
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
You are correct in your assessment, at least in my opinion.
But there are some who will never be able to look at it that way. On BOTH sides.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Venter has talked about his work on microorganisms contributing to synthetic fuels and medical treatments. I don’t know if breakthroughs in this field will come within a decade or within a century, but by working with the source code of life scientists are about to wrestle with the most promising and dangerous technology in history.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Let us then ban creative & critical thinking altogether.
I would not like to be guilty of “advocating’ the wrong thing.
Come one-can we be a little realistic here?
Those who are the proposed “Darwinists” you scold do not necessarily ‘mock’ the concept of a ‘Designer’.
They just question the relevance to FACT that it has.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Right, but those who determine what a new species is, did not find the Nectarine as a new species, according to Wiki.
My point is, this is nowhere near a case for being macro-evolution. It would have had to be a different “kind” not merely a new species in order to be an example of macro-evolution… it isn’t even a different species let alone a different “kind.”
And no information in the gene code has been added, it was merely a loss of information that caused the change, its only a variation of the same kind, therefore certainly NOT an example of macro-evolution as you suggested in your post at 2:19pm.
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM
SOMEONE has to pick-up where SaintOlaf left off. How’d I do (in this thread)?
Besides. I figure Collie and I are next in line for the ban hammer. Who wants a talking dog hanging around their blog site?
My collie says:
Yeah. I have a mean streak ya’ know. I was in a pretty foul mood last night. Then, on the other hand, when dealing with mules, first, you have to get their attention. A two-by-four square across the middle of the face is usually pretty effective.
CyberCipher on February 4, 2009 at 4:07 PM
This is what scares many ID/Creationists.
The real danger is the danger of dissent from an opinion people hold fanatically.
Those who are open to facts & many interpretations can still hold on to their ideals & beliefs.
It is those who have no understanding of the issues who feel threatened by new knowledge.
Scary times a’comin’, my friend.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM
OH, yes it does!!
papabryant on February 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Yes, there is the paradox of simulating evolution in a computer model and demonstrating the need, in that case, for a creator.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Aside from your collie’s reminder, you were fine. Things always get heated in these threads, but I’ve never seen you as one who enjoys the thought of evildooers burning in hell for eternity.
That’s my biggest beef with science. And certainly, I can imagine what some might want to do with such advancements.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I am suggesting that we may not yet know how the micro & marco are connected, or whether they even are connected.
But I will not remain close minded enough to propose I know what God means when it comes to the creation of what’s living here now, & what has been living here in the past.
If you believe the Bible literally, then the Earth is 6 thousand years old bcs God REALLY meant that 1 of His days = 1 of our years.
How can anyone refute such a “belief”?
This argument of evolution not being macro & only micro is something we may either prove or disprove one day.
The nectarine is a bad example I chose.
But my premise remains the same.
Micro MAY = macro. Or it MAY not.
We do not know. We may never know.
But when I go to church & I have a Bible studies teacher telling me the Earth is 6 thousand years old & every species was put here in its exact form by God and on & on, I get a little testy.
The only reason these kinds of people KNOW is bcs of their divine revelation. Something based on philosophy, theology, and feelings & beliefs.
Unquantifiable things.
I have no opinion yet either way that micro = macro in evolution.
But I do know that in geologic processes many times it DOES.
So when I see it emulated like that in other disciplines, I’m open to the idea of it being possible in evolution.
I am not decided.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Please don’t take up where the good St. left off… I like your doggie too much, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on things. Your collie is very good at getting to the point of things.
Oh, and you’re good to go too. : )
Anna on February 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM
oh yeah we’re just shivering in fear…sure.
its the darwiniacs who are scared, and have to sue, silence and harass those who disagree with their faith in their hairygod darwin.
see sternberg for the intolerant brown-shirted darwiniacs…they are truly the scared ones…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:17 PM
DUDE! I love this!
What a cool way to philosophize about this!
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
You guys have gone off the rails, and are fighting over the wrong question. Yes, if I were writing a solitaire game, the first thing I’d do is define an object called “card”, and another called “stack”. “card” would start out with attributes “suit”, “value”, “face_up” and “on_top”. It would have methods “turn_over” and “move_to_stack”. And so forth.
But that’s all irrelevant. The point is not whether I started by creating objects; the point is that the game would have — say it with me — A CREATOR!!
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Even I had a mildly twitchy sphincter when the hadron collider went online.
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
take it out of the computer, and think of it in real life…no object is created to be used later…as ID says, something like blood clotting has to work the first time, every time, or you die…there is no ‘trial and error’ to it… and if these are made up of little ‘objects’ that are usless in and of themselves, then natural selection says these objects will be deleted…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM
no its not, because you have to use a top-down design..ie intelligent design to make it work..instead of a bottom-up design that will hopefully create objects that somehow work together…sometime…
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I don’t reject creationism because “I don’t want there to be a God.” Truthfully, I’d much rather believe that I get to live forever, and that there’s some eternal justice in this existence. My reasons for not believing that have little to do with evolution. Evolution is as consistent with theism as it is with atheism. It’s irrelevant to both.
I reject creationism because it’s illogical, inconsistent with the facts, and useless in advancing knowledge and technology.
Evolution is not some atheistic conspiracy to destroy religion. Come to think of it, if half of the U.S. believes in evolution, than by far the largest group of supporters for evolution are theists.
This isn’t about religion. It’s about the facts.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 4:20 PM
and the facts say no evolution..sorry…and the facts say that either christianity is right, or evolution is…no middle ground…sorry.
and tell me even if evolution is true, how does it advance science? can you predict the next variation of the flu bug via evolution?? no. whats it good for?
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:22 PM
These “darwiniacs” you speak of seek to silence debate.
They are wrong.
But your tone throughout this thread smacks mightily of some intolerance in itself.
I’m pretty thick-skinned. I can see your point about some of this stuff.
But you also sound kind of scary about it & that really can turn a person off who’s riding the fence on issues like this.
It isn’t God’s way or the highway.
We get to choose while we’re here & then we’ll be damned for the consequences.
God gave us that wonderful gift.
If you want to win over people, you might want to lay off the heavy criticism & stick with stuff that’s qunatifiable.
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:23 PM
The innate fallacy there (non sequitur) is asserting that everything that exists was produced by something else. You keep recursively asking “OK, and where did that come from?” so many times until you end up at “I have no idea” – then A-HA! Absence of knowledge is proposed as evidence of some unknown entity.
Just because we can’t wrap our tiny homo sapien brains around the problem, doesn’t make such assertions any more rational.
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Yes it would, but could the creator set in motion an environment with seed objects that have the ability to evolve into more complex objects? The creator wouldn’t then need to be hands-on modifying the source code for the creation of every new object type.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Thank you very kindly! I wrote this for a Medieval Philosophy class at the University of North Florida. Got an A for it! (I later transfered and got my BA in Philosophy-Religious Studies from Clemson, where I’m now in grad school.)
papabryant on February 4, 2009 at 4:27 PM
oh please, give me an example of this ‘intolerance’
give me an example of this.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:27 PM
there is a certain amount of variability built into the genome to cope with changing conditions…and thats why things like a lion and tiger can mate…
but as far as creating new types of organisms??
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:29 PM
oh and remember ‘junk’ dna?? a darwinist concept that inhibited further research into areas of the genome that we did not understand….but it turns out there is no such thing…
evolution inhibits research.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Yeah, that one’s left me a little concerned. A little to sci-fish for my taste.
Of course you realize that’s what many Christians say about those who don’t believe in God.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM
To the extent that teleology can be shown in features, it would discount much of current evolutionary thought. I haven’t read about clotting, but will do so.
dedalus on February 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Uh, we proved genetic engineering a while ago, didn’t we?
Everyone thinks it must be one or the other, creationism or evolution. Life is never that simple. What if some of both occurred? What if cro magnon man is still with us? A great deal is explained by the Dog Theory.
The geico commercial isnt that far off.
dogsoldier on February 4, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Is God capable of creating an evolution path…that is, could He have created evolution if he wanted to?
Or do you think He is incapable of something like that, so he just created everything all at once (well in several days).
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I’ll bet they do…..of course, I wasn’t talking about the particular conclusion, but rather the problem-space itself. A mental step or two earlier, you could say.
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
If it inhibited further research, how did they figure out it was wrong??? Not that it’s clear that there isn’t junk DNA. It’s an open question that’s probably contentious.
Compare to creationism. “Will this research disprove Genesis? Make it so that it doesn’t.”
Compare to intelligent design creationism. “It was God. We can’t really measure or observe God in any meaningful way. Let’s just pack it up, looks like we’re done here.”
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Badger40 on February 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM
You get 6,000 years for the age of the earth by adding up the ages of the patriarchs and the Bible is talking about “kinds” not “species.” Many adaptation of the various kinds gives us the wide variety of plant and animal life we see today. There are not that many kinds. Examples Cats, dogs, cows, horses… etc.
There are perhaps a few hundred breeds of dogs, but they are all one kind.
Maxx on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
of course He is capable of anything…and what you call evolution is merely good design..variation built into an organism to cope with a changing environment..
as I said, speciation is perfectly consistent with creation.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Fair enough. And I agree that it’s unwise to argue that just because we don’t understand something right now that it must automatically be something else. We didn’t used to understand hurricanes either.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM
so newton, Pasteur, kelvin couldn’t do research because they all thought God did it??
its a baseless darwiniac talking point.
right4life on February 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM
MB4: If it was conclusively proven there was no God, I’d do just what any rational being would do: Grab anything and everything for myself, ala Stalin, to the best of my ability. Why would I be wrong? Who’s gonna stop me? When I die, I die–whether it be on top of the world watching the crushed and quivering bodies of my enemies, or a slave. I’d rather be the ruler then.
In short, a Hobbesian state: life is nasty, brutish and short.
As for Badger40, It’s not really hyperbole. Most people arguing that Darwin was right and there was no creator simply don’t realize what that means. If the Pope thinks evolution can co-exist with God, he is wrong, kind of. I myself said that things evolving to another is not a problem, as long as you admit that someone is directing much of it. It’s the conclusion of the Darwinists who stridently maintain that “There can BE no Designer at all!” that is the problem. They are the ones who take some facts: that it appears organisms have changed into another and concluded that said changes are completely random or natural without direction.
That conclusion is not at all scientific, and is deeply wrong.
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Just did some checking at wikipedia…I didn’t realize that there was a colossal f-up and the LHC never actually performed a ‘live fire’ experiment….they just took a couple of hours guiding some protons around it to calibrate stuff, then everything went pear shaped.
It isn’t expected to be repaired until summer 2009.
My sphincter is twitching again.
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Vanceone
It seems to me that these discussion generally frame this issue poorly. For instance secular opponents of ID often insist on equating ID with Literalist Creationism. This is unfair and often done in bad faith or gross ignorance. Opponents of ID often need to be better informed. Their post often reek of condescension and ignorance.
.
Those who opposed various forms of Darwinism need to be more clear and precise. For example one can believe in evolution and ID simultaneously. Evolution isn’t exactly the problem. The problem is philosophical materialistic determinism misrepresenting itself as “science” and/or evolution.
.
Almost all forms of ID accept the reality of some kind of evolution. For example: “common descent” is pretty much accepted as a given based upon modern DNA research. Common Descent is not objectionable to modern Christian thought. Evolution which is guided by the Hand of Divine Providence is acceptable for example. Evolution whose results are packed into the basic law of physics at the Big Bang by the Creator is also acceptable. Both of those two position are forms of ID. Indeed some “random mutation” is OK too, as long as Divine Providence guides the overall 4+ billion year process.
.
Ironically, modern DNA research has thoroughly debunked Classical Darwinism. ID opponents need to be fair and acknowledge this.
.
Opponents of ID need to be less snug and start being more fair and concede the obvious, that evolution which is guided by the Hand of Divine Providence and evolution whose results are packed into the basic law of physics at the Big Bang are tenable forms of ID. They also need to step up to the plate and concede evidentiary problems in the various forms of Neo-Darwinism.
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Possible? Yes, at least in theory. But in 25+ years as a programmer (the very profession I’m neglecting at the moment to engage in this discussion) I’ve seldom encountered code that modified itself beyond the degree to which it was specifically instructed to modify itself. I’ve seen viruses that modify themselves to change their signature, and old DOS games used to self-modify all the time to fit into available memory; but the viruses never evolved by themselves into video games, and the video games never evolved by themselves into compilers. They remained within carefully planned and highly restricted parameters.
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Careful, you might be giving Madison prison flashbacks.
The only positive is if everything goes horribly wrong, we’ll likely never even realize it.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Do you really have that low an opinion of yourself? Do you really have that low opinion of the men and women that you believe God created, which would imply a very low opinion of God?
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I’d say their views prevented them from uncovering the history of life on Earth, yes. I should have been more specific about that.
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 5:03 PM
It’ll be one helluva roller-coaster ride over the event-horizon….remember to raise your hands and scream for the camera!
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Perhaps you can helps us understand your post by indicating just where Einstein’s quote begins and ends.
Mike OMalley on February 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM
In a poor way indeed – consider r4l’s unfortunate condition.
LimeyGeek on February 4, 2009 at 5:05 PM
So you agree that he could have created evolution, He could have created a design where one species evolves to the other. He would have that “ability”.
Did he have the “ability” to create the sun? Of course the answer is yes, but he “set” the light, he never put the earth in orbit did he?
See, Genesis has a lot of “shorthand” to explain what happened…you can’t use it as a complete version as to what took place.
Is a day 24 hours? Well we know the Theory of Relativity, and we know that time is dependent on where you are in space…so 24 hours here, can be much “longer” if you were moving at great speed.
You would say that God had to work pretty fast to complete his tasks, I mean, a few million variants of insects, a few million variants of birds, a few million variants of fish, a few million variants of plants, a few million variants of mammals…He was so busy he didn’t even finish on time, he had to finish it on Sunday.
Point being, it is fruitless to try to discern how God created the earth…he may have put some variables that allow a fish to become a mammal, does it really matter?
He said if you knew what He knew, you would know even less…other words, you and I will never know what He did, how He did it…and it doesn’t matter. Remember, in medical school, right up to the 1920′s, they always taught man had one more rib then women, even when they had the skeleton hanging in front of them, they ignored the facts.
Except that it divides people…As a Christian I am more then willing to look at the evidence, or lack of, concerning evolution…the question is why the evolutionists are so adamant about not investigating intelligent design?
Perhaps the answer lies in just two verses of Genesis:
Genesis I, vs. 18
Genesis II vs. 17
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM
After the space…
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM
This is how the world ends
Not with a bang, but a whimper
-TS Eliot
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM
What if, hypothetically, it could be proven to you that there was once a God, who started things out ages ago, but then He died. Maybe died in the process of starting everything else out. Or maybe even a God doesn’t live forever. Or what if there was once and still is a God, but no soul and no life after death. Would you then be Good or Bad?
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Beautiful poem, but I’m hoping it’s full of crap (as a literal predictor of the end of the world). I’ll be very disappointed if I live till the end and it’s unremarkable.
I always mess that up and am somehow looking down by the time the picture is taken.
Esthier on February 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM
right2bright on February 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM
MB4: Do I have that low of an opinion of mankind? Not of every single person, no. But I see what happens in atheistic states. Mao’s “Great Leap Forward.” Stalin. Hitler. Iraq, since I doubt Hussein was really all that religious. Ceaceaseu’s Romania. Heck, the entire iron curtain. All it takes is one greedy, powerhungry man and a whole bunch of people who don’t have a real strong reason to be unselfish. Look at the Democrats, whose ruling philosophy is greed and selfishness in practice.
My opinion of God and his children is a much higher one than you think. For I also think there is a devil, and there are many who follow him rather than God. We are free to choose whom we will, and that leads to people doing the most astonishing things–either for good or for ill.
The natural man, or our instincts, are an enemy to good behavior. What reward have we for controlling our instincts? What does Atheism offer as an incentive to behave well? Nothing–I die just the same.
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 5:14 PM
But how does that compare with “It was NOT God. Can’t prove that it’s not God, but no one can prove that it was. If you should encounter anyone pondering the possibility, crush him.”
There’s a schism within many in the scientific community. On the one hand, we hear “it doesn’t matter whether or not it was God; we’re only interested in what is measurable.” But on the other hand, any scientist who dares to consider even the possibility that a creator is back of the curtain is shunned.
And the thing is that it DOES matter. It may not matter within the strict realm of science itself; but no one lives his entire life in that realm. Most people live very little of their lives there. Most peoples’ lives include love, art, philosophy, and — yes — theology. And for them to be belittled by scientists for believing something about which science — by scientists’ own admission, depending upon when you ask them — has nothing to say, is intellectual tyranny. It doesn’t phase me, because my faith in both my God and my intellect is passably strong (I’d be better off with a little more faith in God and a little less in my intellect, to tell the truth); but a lot of people, especially children, are cowed into submission by dictatorial assertions that God does not exist, from teachers who they are told are very smart people.
This is why Christians get upset about science in school totally closing the door on the notion of creation, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it. I, for one, don’t really want the school teaching “creation science” based upon the book of Genesis (though if only it were academically honest it might be of value at Church). I’m not wanting the science teacher to assert that there IS a designer. Why not just say “a lot of people think God created the universe, and maybe they’re right; but apart from why it happened, or whether God had a hand in it — things science can’t tell us — here’s what we KNOW DID happen:
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM
As for your hypotheticals of a now dead God, or something happened, etc: ergo, God was around but isn’t anymore: What difference, then, would it make? What is the practical difference between that and no God at all? If we have no soul, no life after death, and this is all there is, then it’s pretty much moot, isn’t it? If God is dead now, it doesn’t really matter if He lived a long time ago, does it?
No, in that case unless a new God can arise, then it’s pretty much pointless still. And without an eternal existence for the soul of man, it’s still pretty well an Atheist world of doom, gloom, and might makes right.
Vanceone on February 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM
They have investigated it. It’s BS. Dembski’s math is wrong, Behe’s predictions have been shown to be false. Beyond that, it’s not even possible to study intelligent design. Even if Dembski and Behe had truly proven the existence of a creator (and I can’t stress enough that virtually nobody in the scientific community thinks they did), what next? How do you put God under the microscope?
RightOFLeft on February 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM
oops. My previous post, outside the quote box, was all me. Sorry for the erroneous inclusion of RightOfLeft’s sig.
RegularJoe on February 4, 2009 at 5:23 PM
You are kind of changing the subject, however we can go with that I suppose as politicians do it all the time.
Most of Europe has become largely atheistic (close enough anyway – very secular – very un-church going). The Islamic world is, well, very religious. Where would you rather live?
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:24 PM
The Devil is such a concept. God’s little imaginary “friend” to blame for all the bad while God gets credit for all the good.
MB4 on February 4, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next »