In the US, we mean a kind of airplane that the Wright brothers flew
a "Base Canard" is a duck that plays infield
Unless, of course, the aquatic fowl in question is playing short stop . . .
This sounds like foul play.
Write or not, it makes me gaggle.
Random thought:
Laughter is like medicine to the soul. It can take the mind of the problem and help one to see a solution....
see next thread for the continued conversation with myself...
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:real life wrote:Of course, as we just finished discussing, a large portion of the scientific community believes that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of man, etc. Ditto many of the great scientists of history.
No, a considerable portion of the scientific community has the belief that God somehow contributed to the evolutionary process. That is not the same as saying that they do not believe that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of man.
Did it ever occur to you, that they may believe that God made the natural laws and then let natural processes do his "dirty work"?
The survey addressed the issue of naturalism alone or not.
Quote:"I put them together in an overall view." Rick Potts, director of human origins at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said it is not unusual to find religious beliefs in any community including scientists.
But "I'm happy to see that 55% are taking a naturalistic approach," he said.
from
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Hi Ros,
I know you like using the term 'magic' because of it's derisive connotation.
At least it's more accurate than "Evolutionist", Mr. innocent.
What's wrong with the term 'evolutionist'?
It's not a derisive term at all, merely descriptive.
merriamwebster.com wrote:evolution
One entry found for evolution.
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective[/i][/u]
I know others have objected to the term in the past, but really I expected more sense from you. Are you really offended by it? I cannot imagine why. It simply means that you support or hold to the evolutionary theory. Nothing more or less.
(Yes I have seen people mis-use the word, pronouncing it 'evil-utionist' or 'devil-utionist' in the same way as Timber calls people ID-iots. But I have never used the word this way and would consider it very offensive. Resorting to name calling simply means you really have nothing to say anyway.)
TalkOrigins uses the word without blinking
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul97.html
Surely we have more substantial issues than this. But if you really think for some reason that this is a slam, then what word do you suggest?
Hang on a minute! "40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians and astronomers include God in the process"?
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Hang on a minute! "40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians and astronomers include God in the process"?
Yup.
If you include God in the process of evolution then you are saying it didn't occur solely by naturalistic processes, no?
real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Hi Ros,
I know you like using the term 'magic' because of it's derisive connotation.
At least it's more accurate than "Evolutionist", Mr. innocent.
What's wrong with the term 'evolutionist'?
It's not a derisive term at all, merely descriptive.
Oops, I got it confused with Evolutionism. My bad. I guess you are Mr. Innocent after all.
real life wrote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Hang on a minute! "40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians and astronomers include God in the process"?
Yup.
If you include God in the process of evolution then you are saying it didn't occur solely by naturalistic processes, no?
Unless you consider "God" to be some kind of spiritual essence to everything which imbues the process, or unless you think that god started the Big Bang and let the process ride, or unless you think that god guides the process by selecting natural events, unless unless unless. Those are all beliefs that involve god in the process without assuming that supernatural events occurred.
If you want to find out for us just what piece of that 40% actually bellieve that supernatural events occurred to alter the process, then we can talk about those people and try to figure out if we even care what they think from a scientific perspective.
real life wrote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Hang on a minute! "40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians and astronomers include God in the process"?
Yup.
If you include God in the process of evolution then you are saying it didn't occur solely by naturalistic processes, no?
No. That's not the same. My previous argument still stands, despite the fact that mathematicians and astronomers were included in the poll, both of whom have very little experience in anything regarding evolution compared to the other groups.
If you include God in the process of evolution, you are not saying that it didn't occur solely by naturalistic processes. You are saying they believe in God and they believe that Evolution is thanks to him. The poll itself isn't about naturalism, it's about whether God is involved or not.
The dinstinction is very clear.
real life wrote:If you include God in the process of evolution then you are saying it didn't occur solely by naturalistic processes, no?
What do you mean by "naturalistic processes"? What do you mean by "god"?
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Hang on a minute! "40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians and astronomers include God in the process"?
Yup.
If you include God in the process of evolution then you are saying it didn't occur solely by naturalistic processes, no?
Unless you consider "God" to be some kind of spiritual essence to everything which imbues the process, or unless you think that god started the Big Bang and let the process ride, or unless you think that god guides the process by selecting natural events, unless unless unless. Those are all beliefs that involve god in the process without assuming that supernatural events occurred.
If you want to find out for us just what piece of that 40% actually bellieve that supernatural events occurred to alter the process, then we can talk about those people and try to figure out if we even care what they think from a scientific perspective.
A short time ago, we had this exchange:
Rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote: Yes, of course creationists believe that not everything is the result of natural processes. By definition, the action of God would be supernatural, no?
Ok. Just checking to make sure we're in agreement.
So then, if God is involved (i.e. takes any active part, whether beginning, middle or whatever), then by definition this is supernatural, not natural processes, no?
Real life does not generally respond to my queries, I am pained.
real life wrote:A short time ago, we had this exchange:
Rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote: Yes, of course creationists believe that not everything is the result of natural processes. By definition, the action of God would be supernatural, no?
Ok. Just checking to make sure we're in agreement.
I was agreeing with your first sentence, not nceessarily your second (which is dependent on what particular "action" and "God" you mean.
real life wrote:So then, if God is involved (i.e. takes any active part, whether beginning, middle or whatever), then by definition this is supernatural, not natural processes, no?
See Wolf's answer to this a few posts up. I thought it was pretty well said.
Chumly wrote:Real life does not generally respond to my queries, I am pained.
That's interesting, many of us are pained by the fact that RL *does* respond to us
(just kidding RL, we love ya)
my involvement stops where my evidence runs out. However I still find it fascinating how whether in our collective opinion a mechanical engineer or social scientist or even a physical chemist has anything to add to all this.
Anywhere where we have to believe in something based on some teachings from our childhood, we lose credibility. I used to be a physical chemist and I dont recall anyplace where my evidencecame into conflict with a religious worldview. In biology and geology, its a much different story.
You have to put away any beliefs in a young world cause evidence doesnt support it.
You see evidence of common ancestry not in Creation
We see evidence of what we call "deep time"
radionuclide chemistry,geophysics,molecular biology all impose their evidence on a natural world that was periodically involved in cataclysms that directed which way life had to turn.
Whether a scientist believes in a personal God as a moral compass is just fine as long as it doesnt interfere with that scientists mind.
Youve talked about the ncse's data on how many scientists believe in God. The important question would then be,"How many of those scientists have their beliefs challenged by their evidence in their work"? I would have to say that, if these people work in evolutionary biology or geosciences , then their beliefs are challenged all the time, and itd be difficult to maintain an active "God of the Bible who became involved with the life process" Miller, at B rown, whose written a number of texts for use in classroom bio, is a Roman Catholic. He practices his faith and it steers his moral ship, but he doesnt "believe" in the story of Creation, same thing with Raup, at the Natural Hist museum . Gould was a Reformed Jew , which IMHO, is more a life philosophy that has incorporated God into its history and has a mostly academic view on the lessons that the Torah and the TAlmud pronounce. For them its intellectual exercise.However He was agnostic this I know as fact.. He had lectured a number of times regarding his beliefs versus what he understands through evidence. His example was that he always "believed " that the YAnkees were a great team, but this was borne out by their stats, not his say so.
The only "camp" of Christianity that gets in the way of the evolutionary sciennces are the Bible centered Evangelists and "Biblical literalists" like the Witnesses.
Their mission is to spread a doctrine that has no basis in any facts and relies heavily on forced interpretations and a God whose forever doing "magic tricks"
When the conversation goes in this direction , I frankly, just like to stand and watch because Ive yet to see any arguments that satisfy the Evangelicals once their minds are set.
We can answer just about any technical questions fairly easily, whether they accept them or not is never in our hands. I suppose that were doomed to play these discussions on an eternal "do loop".
As far as that goes, "real life" is only ever intent on creating an impression that there is not wide-spread scientific support for a theory of evolution. To that end, he will always refer to a suspect survey, for which the credentials of the respondants are not established, and which includes quite a few disciplines which do not necessarily constitute scientific practice in the sense that is generally understood when one refers to research science.
It does not dismay "real life" that dieticians and psychologists may be included in the survey, that only adds wonderful padding to his willfully disingenuous contentions. Note that he always confates a belief in a diety with a statement that 40% of the "scientists" surveyed believe a god had a hand creation of man. His stock in trade is deceptive statements, and reference to "facts" who factual value is not at all established.
and we know that certain information comes from an inflammible source.
