spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:08 pm
Where do you supposed SDers stand on Armstrong's The Materialist Theory of Mind.

Or when some of Freud's disciples got into lab work?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 01:52 pm
hi real life,
You may consider that Catholics are IDers, they do not. Theyll have little to do with special evolution of man, irreducible complexity, and directional evolution.

Theres a lot of research by Catholic scientists (excluding Mike Behe) that are investigating adaptation to life after mass extinction events.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:58 pm
real life wrote:
Hi Farmerman,

My only point was that Catholics (and other theistic evolutionists) basically are IDers. They believe in God as creator and teach evolution as the process.


There is a difference between ID and Deism. As far as I know, ID'ers don't only assert that God put it all in motion, but also tweaked it along the way.

I think Deism is more of a "spirit behind the nature" type of belief. I myself might be considered Deist, because I don't rule out the possibility of some "essence" outside of nature which might have fused with nature to generate the result we see.

So I don't think you are being accurate when you lump Catholics and ID'ers into the same bucket simply because they both say "God is creator, and evolution the process". ID leans very strongly toward an interaction in the process by God, not simply an essence of the process itself. A subtle difference, but am important one.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 03:02 pm
can I get an AMEN?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 03:07 pm
Ramen
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 04:02 pm
Set, farmerman deserves more than a wet noodle. LOL
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:10 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Hi Farmerman,

My only point was that Catholics (and other theistic evolutionists) basically are IDers. They believe in God as creator and teach evolution as the process.


There is a difference between ID and Deism. As far as I know, ID'ers don't only assert that God put it all in motion, but also tweaked it along the way.

I think Deism is more of a "spirit behind the nature" type of belief. I myself might be considered Deist, because I don't rule out the possibility of some "essence" outside of nature which might have fused with nature to generate the result we see.

So I don't think you are being accurate when you lump Catholics and ID'ers into the same bucket simply because they both say "God is creator, and evolution the process". ID leans very strongly toward an interaction in the process by God, not simply an essence of the process itself. A subtle difference, but am important one.


Hi Ros,

That's true what you are saying about some IDers. Different groups or individuals have differing ideas about how much or how often they think God (or whatever Designer they may postulate. Not all see it as God.) may have 'tweaked' the universe after initial creation.

That is why I look at the idea of Intelligent Design as a superset, with various subsets.

The concept of an Intelligent Designer, in and of itself , is a very basic idea. IDers take the view that natural processes alone are an insufficient explanation for the universe we see and the life in it.

Subsets of the ID concept would include (but not necessarily limited to):

--Theistic evolutionists (some Christian, some Jewish, some Islamic, some of other deistic beliefs that have a similar concept of an all powerful Being who created the universe ) This is, without a doubt, the most overlooked group of IDers.

--Non theistic evolutionists -- this would include such diverse ideas as Panspermia, notably represented by folks like Sir Fred Hoyle, who believed that since there was insufficient time in the postulated life span of the Earth for life to have evolved to it's current level, therefore life must have evolved elsewhere and the present array of life on Earth was planted by super-intelligent beings from outer space.

--Direct Creationists (often just termed 'Creationists'. But since this term could also, with some accuracy, be applied to theistic evolutionists as they hold the idea of a creating God, a more precise term, distinguishing the two, is to be preferred so as to aid in understanding just what or who is being referred to.) -- again these are some Christian , some Jewish, some Islamic, some of other deistic beliefs with a similar concept of a creating God. (These would also often , although not by necessity, be young earthers. There are also old earthers among this group.)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 07:06 am
Eugenie Scott has done an article about your "big tent" assertion there real life. She, however takes a different tack. She stated that there are about 5 groupings of CREATIONISM, of which ID is (as judge jones stated) merely a relabelled form.

I understand that youre probably wishing to change your entire posture herein since the "Jones test" was published, but to merely try to now redefine everyone as merely some form of IDer just cause they practice a religion , is a bit disingenuous and not a little transparent.

Rel life-Have a nice holiday nonetheless. I for one , value your personal views on the entire subject and youve got courage to post your beliefs for all to see and comment. You dont back away ( sometimes you change the direction , but you always take an interesting direction).
Same thing to all the posters herein , be ye either "Creationists" "IDers" or those believers in "Evolutionism"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:08 am
I don't believe in no evolutionism . . . but i do believe in a well-roasted goose . . . hope yours is just as stuffed full of good-to-eat sh!t as the proverb suggests . . .
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:38 am
Goosey,goosey,gander,
Whither dost thou wander?
Upstairs,downstairs
And in my lady's chamber.

There I met an old man
Who wouldn't say his prayers.
I took him by the left leg,
And threw him down the stairs.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:50 am
farmerman wrote:
Eugenie Scott has done an article about your "big tent" assertion there real life. She, however takes a different tack. She stated that there are about 5 groupings of CREATIONISM, of which ID is (as judge jones stated) merely a relabelled form.

I understand that youre probably wishing to change your entire posture herein since the "Jones test" was published, but to merely try to now redefine everyone as merely some form of IDer just cause they practice a religion , is a bit disingenuous and not a little transparent.

Rel life-Have a nice holiday nonetheless. I for one , value your personal views on the entire subject and youve got courage to post your beliefs for all to see and comment. You dont back away ( sometimes you change the direction , but you always take an interesting direction).
Same thing to all the posters herein , be ye either "Creationists" "IDers" or those believers in "Evolutionism"



Hi Farmerman,

Actually my broad view of the concept of Intelligent Design is nothing new and has nothing to do with Judge Jones' decision. see this post from a few months ago where I articulated the same http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1621699&highlight=earmarks#1621699

I've read very little of Eugenie, though I know who she is, so my view has nothing to do with specifically rebutting her either.

I hope you have a happy holiday also , filled with goodwill toward men. I look forward to more interesting discussions in the future and I appreciate your straightforward and open minded approach.

Take good care, Farmerman.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:57 am
Setanta wrote:
I don't believe in no evolutionism . . . but i do believe in a well-roasted goose . . . hope yours is just as stuffed full of good-to-eat sh!t as the proverb suggests . . .


Hi Setanta,

Well, I hope you do enjoy a well roasted goose , as well as some wonderful times with friends and family. May the best of everything be yours now and in the new year ahead.

---------------

And for all other posters on A2K I hope you too will experience peace and goodwill in the coming days. Cool
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 05:51 pm
Could someone explain why irreducable complexity is not valid? I just watched a DVD on it and I was curious to learn why it isn't more influential?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 06:50 pm
Oh it is TR.Don't fret about it.This is not typical on here.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 11:41 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Could someone explain why irreducable complexity is not valid? I just watched a DVD on it and I was curious to learn why it isn't more influential?


IC, irreducible complexity, the perceived scientific cornerstone of ID-iocy, is not "more influential" because it itself is error-ridden psuedoscientific poppycock.

A scholarly review of Behe's book


A brief paper touching on the evolution of flagellum

A somewhat longer paper, Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella

And as a parting shot, Behe shoots his own foot
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 02:12 am
Death versus creation... Smile
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 09:32 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Could someone explain why irreducable complexity is not valid?


Because nothing has yet been proven to be irreducably complex. Also because the core assumptions of IR are based on misunderstandings of how biological systems evolve.

When a theory is based on misconceptions, and when there is no evidence to support it, it is generally ignored. The only reason this one isn't being ignored is because some people really really WANT it to be true, so much so that they are ignoring the facts.

thunder_runner32 wrote:
I just watched a DVD on it and I was curious to learn why it isn't more influential?


It's hard for a theory to be influential in science when it hasn't a shred of actual evidence to support it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 11:02 am
thunder,

The concept of irreducible complexity was introduced by Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist. He provided some examples of organisms which he thought were so complex that, if they were missing a single part, they would not function. Each of his examples has been disproven. The summation: the examples show complexity but not irreducibility.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 04:04 pm
It seems that fanaticism is not merely a monopoly of the Bible-thumping creationists, but those of 'scientists' as well. Most of the people adhere to Darwinian evolution and the scientists are sure and certain beyond a reasonable doubt, that claims of Darwinian evolution are true. When we stop and consider the many assumptions, metaphysical and otherwise, made by the claims of Darwinian evolution, there are certainly questions that have not, and cannot be answered. But I remember what my rather scientific mentor taught me: never succumb to any person, thing, or idea that claims to have answers to everything for that is how deception occurs.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 04:28 pm
As long as it is a theory and valid scientists should stand by it as it explains how life forms evolve just like market forces shaping corporations, unions and jobs. Phlogiston theory was discarded so will evolution theory be discarded if there is something better but the Biblical Genesis is not it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 318
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 07:21:18