A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

[Geriatrix]

You no read good? But thanks for emphatically proving my point.

You'll note I specifically said that there are details under discussion. To then go into a blind tirade concerning the details under discussion is to miss the boat a wee bit, don't ya think?

Also, your link's borked...

Just google Professor Michael Ruse. He's a philosopher pushing a heavy Christian agenda, apparently.

 

[HapticSimian]

Just google Professor Michael Ruse. He's a philosopher pushing a heavy Christian agenda, apparently.

I've heard of him before and, to my recollection, he merely advocates a conciliatory position between religiosity and acceptance of evolution. Hence my curiosity as to why someone who emphatically rejects evolution would link to anything by him.

 

[Geriatrix]

I've heard of him before and, to my recollection, he merely advocates a conciliatory position between religiosity and acceptance of evolution.

Really? Google gave me some weird results then.

 

[zippy]

See this just highlights your stupidity on this subject. Even after addressing this post in the previous thread and pointing out that it has been posted and rebutted on numerous occasions, you still create a new thread, just for this. Because it backs up your belief system so you refuse to accept counter arguments.

Firstly, the theory of gravity, as you put it, is not accepted by everyone. Shows just how much you know. Quantum mechanics showed us that our understanding of gravity was wrong in parts and right in others. The reason CERN blasts particles together is to understand gravity and why it exists.

Secondly, having a difference of opinion is encouraged in science. There is no under-current of science presidents going around telling everyone not to question things. On the contrary. Evidently you have absolutely no idea what science is, nor how it works.

Thirdly, the theory attempts to explain the fact that we can and do observe evolution. This has been explained to you with examples in massive threads on countless occasions. You simply dismiss it because, and I have come to this conclusion because of the frustration in repeating this all to you, you are too stupid to understand it, or unwilling to...

+1

The theory of gravity is by no means tied down. In fact the the theory of evolution probably has far more evidence in support for it compared to any theory of gravity.

 

[w1z4rd]

Sorry, but this is a complete and utter joke.

Your views are representative of the early 90's, perhaps late 90's.

Even within evolutionary circles these days there are numerous dissenting views - neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, the Public Goods Hypothesis, post-Modern Evolution - why so many alternate views?

Yet you claim "evolution" is settled science. What a load.

Evolution is unravelling at the fastest pace ever throughout human scientific history. Every day new stumbling blocks are found. As technology improves, so to does our understanding of life and the cell.

Evolution is coming apart at the seams, there are only so many little dutch boys that can plug the holes until the damn bursts.
But it seems phyletic gradualism is the only game in town, so yeah I guess you gotta play it, if that's what worldview you hold to.

As for religious dogma my friend..
If certain events and comments would just reach the wider media -- you would be in no doubt as to just what evolution represents for many of the top evolutionary advocates -- it's their very own secular religion.

Speech by Professor Michael Ruse

Bwahaha. You really do speak a load of crud. lol.

 

[empirex]

I've heard of him before and, to my recollection, he merely advocates a conciliatory position between religiosity and acceptance of evolution.

Michael Ruse is an atheist; and strongly argues in favour of evolution.

Hence my curiosity as to why someone who emphatically rejects evolution would link to anything by him.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

He argues that evolutionists should own up to the fact that evolution has become a secular religion for many evolutionary proponents. Just the fervour with which some of you folks defend (evolution) and severely attack those who criticise it should be testament enough to this.

Additionally part of his mantra is that he doesn't think evolutionists (or creationists / ID supporters for that matter) need to be a-holes when debating the issues. He calls for respectful debate amoung the various groups.

I quoted him because although I disagree entirely with his views I respect the man as an intellectual and scientist.

 

[empirex]

Just google Professor Michael Ruse. He's a philosopher pushing a heavy Christian agenda, apparently.

Or not.

 

[Geriatrix]

Or not.

Yeah, I got some strange links. :wtf: Weeeeird.

 

[empirex]

Yeah, I got some strange links. :wtf: Weeeeird.

This guy

not this guy

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Sorry, but this is a complete and utter joke.

Your views are representative of the early 90's, perhaps late 90's.

Even within evolutionary circles these days there are numerous dissenting views - neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, the Public Goods Hypothesis, post-Modern Evolution - why so many alternate views?

Yet you claim "evolution" is settled science. What a load.

Evolution is unravelling at the fastest pace ever throughout human scientific history. Every day new stumbling blocks are found. As technology improves, so to does our understanding of life and the cell.

Evolution is coming apart at the seams, there are only so many little dutch boys that can plug the holes until the damn bursts.
But it seems phyletic gradualism is the only game in town, so yeah I guess you gotta play it, if that's what worldview you hold to.

As for religious dogma my friend..
If certain events and comments would just reach the wider media -- you would be in no doubt as to just what evolution represents for many of the top evolutionary advocates -- it's their very own secular religion.

Speech by Professor Michael Ruse

Yes, I don't really know where you are going with this. You are clearly believe that evolutionary theory is going to fall apart any minute and then you post a link to a speech by a professor is totally pro-evolution.

Here is a link to an interview done with Professor Ruse, which is quite informative on his views: http://calitreview.com/80

I think his viewpoint on the whole new atheist movement is based on his personality, he can see that there is escalating conflict between the two opposing camps and he would rather have a more peaceful and civil approach to that of say Richard Dawkins (who can be very confrontational). I believe there is much more to his argument, but I haven't read his book on this subject (which I will look up now). From what I have read however it seems he is just against extremism, and I think he has every right to hold this judgement.

 

[HapticSimian]

Michael Ruse is an atheist; and strongly argues in favour of evolution.

...

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

He argues that evolutionists should own up to the fact that evolution has become a secular religion for many evolutionary proponents. Just the fervour with which some of you folks defend (evolution) and severely attack those who criticise it should be testament enough to this.

Additionally part of his mantra is that he doesn't think evolutionists (or creationists / ID supporters for that matter) need to be a-holes when debating the issues. He calls for respectful debate amoung the various groups.

I quoted him because although I disagree entirely with his views I respect the man as an intellectual and scientist.

Whilst there is certainly merit to keeping discussion civil, there comes a point where it becomes simply a matter of right vs. wrong, and seeking to maintain civility quickly turns into giving apparent credence to incorrect ideas. Two quotes which serve to illustrate my position on the issue:

"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Continue to push the amicable Prof Ruse on an issue he knows you are unequivocally wrong about, and I will eat a shoe if he doesn't get a mite uppity in response. We all have our thresholds for bull****.

 

[empirex]

Yes, I don't really know where you are going with this. You are clearly believe that evolutionary theory is going to fall apart any minute and then you post a link to a speech by a professor is totally pro-evolution.

I explained myself quite clearly.

 

[empirex]

Whilst there is certainly merit to keeping discussion civil, there comes a point where it becomes simply a matter of right vs. wrong, and seeking to maintain civility quickly turns into giving apparent credence to incorrect ideas. Two quotes which serve to illustrate my position on the issue:

"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Continue to push the amicable Prof Ruse on an issue he knows you are unequivocally wrong about, and I will eat a shoe if he doesn't get a mite uppity in response. We all have our thresholds for bull****.

Case closed it seems -- you are as fanatical and dogmatic as my most fervent Christian friends. You are mirror images of each other. Fairly ironic...

 

[DJ...]

Case closed it seems -- you are as fanatical and dogmatic as my most fervent Christian friends. You are mirror images of each other. Fairly ironic...

Not quite there, chippy. When Haptic posts, he backs up his point of view with sound reasoning, logic and evidence. Vastly different to the bullschit you're trying to lump him with...

 

[HapticSimian]

Case closed it seems -- you are as fanatical and dogmatic as my most fervent Christian friends. You are mirror images of each other. Fairly ironic...

Well, let's see:

fa·nat·i·cal [fuh-nat-i-kuhl]
adjective
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

Your characterisation kinda falls flat at that point; regardless of my levels of interest in and enthusiasm for the topics at hand, I assess my convictions no less critically than I do anyone else's. To be clear, I am only as certain of my position because I've investigated both it and all opposing views I've come across quite thoroughly. Where I'm shown to be clearly in error I will adjust my view accordingly (as per sig... click it...), but I will not give credence to tolly.

That you would equate me to your hyper-deluded friends is unsurprising, but quite inaccurate. If you've got the stomach for it, I suggest you view a 3-part talk presented by JT Eberhard entitled "Dear Christian" - you might come out the other side with a better understanding of our position, if not of the facts at hand.

** Yes, we're getting mired in discussing religious notions in Natural Sciences again. It's unavoidable given the topic. Perhaps this thread should be moved to PD? **

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Case closed it seems -- you are as fanatical and dogmatic as my most fervent Christian friends. You are mirror images of each other. Fairly ironic...

lol.

 

[empirex]

Well, let's see:

fa·nat·i·cal [fuh-nat-i-kuhl]
adjective
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

Your characterisation kinda falls flat at that point; regardless of my levels of interest in and enthusiasm for the topics at hand, I assess my convictions no less critically than I do anyone else's. To be clear, I am only as certain of my position because I've investigated both it and all opposing views I've come across quite thoroughly. Where I'm shown to be clearly in error I will adjust my view accordingly (as per sig... click it...), but I will not give credence to tolly.

That you would equate me to your hyper-deluded friends is unsurprising, but quite inaccurate. If you've got the stomach for it, I suggest you view a 3-part talk presented by JT Eberhard entitled "Dear Christian" - you might come out the other side with a better understanding of our position, if not of the facts at hand.

** Yes, we're getting mired in discussing religious notions in Natural Sciences again. It's unavoidable given the topic. Perhaps this thread should be moved to PD? **

This about sums it up you see:

We all have our thresholds for bull****

Same mindset, same approach, just the opposite side of the argument. Zero tolerance.

You want to know what a true debate between opposing parties should be like. People who disagree vehemently with each others views, yet debate like men, rather than loud-mouthed rabble hurling juvenile abuse, check the video below.

Take note of the heckler during the debate (attacking Meyer), something that DJ would no doubt resort to , and yet it's Ward that comes to his defence: "You will find no blood here."
It's a harsh critical debate, yet both men respect each other and are even friends, understanding that civility need not be lost, just because of a difference of opinion.

After the debate you shake hands and move on. It's something the "worshippers" of Dawkins do not understand, as he preaches the same intolerant message that the Church of old did.


[video=youtube;70usXESjHJg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70usXESjHJg[/video]


Part 3 is here, and you can find the rest of the debate on Youtube if you're interested.

 

[HapticSimian]

This about sums it up you see:



Same mindset, same approach, just the opposite side of the argument. Zero tolerance.

You want to know what a true debate between opposing parties should be like. People who disagree vehemently with each others views, yet debate like men, rather than loud-mouthed rabble hurling juvenile abuse, check the video below.

Take note of the heckler during the debate (attacking Meyer), something that DJ would no doubt resort to , and yet it's Ward that comes to his defence: "You will find no blood here."
It's a harsh critical debate, yet both men respect each other and are even friends, understanding that civility need not be lost, just because of a difference of opinion.

After the debate you shake hands and move on. It's something the "worshippers" of Dawkins do not understand, as he preaches the same intolerant message that the Church of old did.


[video]/video snip[/video]


Part 3 is here, and you can find the rest of the debate on Youtube if you're interested.

There is one overriding factor that you, understandably, choose to ignore: there is no debate to be had. People who contend that 2+2=5 aren't debated with, they're shown to be wrong - and why they're wrong - and are expected to move on of their own volition. Such fundamental errors in judgement are not to be entertained. One can debate the merits of political ideologies, or even the question of whether a creator actually exists. One does not debate established fact.

This 'debate' you've linked to is a case in point: Stephen C. Meyer is a Discovery Institute loony-tune. A loony-tune who withdrew from the Kitzmiller v Dover trial (where ID was ruled not to be science) before testifying because the Discovery Institute learnt that they'd be involving themselves directly in exposing ID as the sham it is. He has no grounds on which to share the stage with any actual scientists, no matter how fuzzy-wuzzy the interaction may be.

Pandering to demonstrably false ideas is unnecessary and counter-productive. By all means, endeavour to show others where they've gone wrong - something I do abundantly by means of links to properly researched and well-substantiated information wherever possible - but when people persist in ignorance it's time to call a spade a dirty ****ing shovel.

 

[empirex]

There is one overriding factor that you, understandably, choose to ignore: there is no debate to be had.

LOL

Unbelievable unbelievable amounts of LOL!

You really don't keep uptodate with current events do you, just to what level of understanding we currently have surrounding the inner workings of the cell.. Your arguments are tired and old. Put down The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, and pick up a couple journals.

Furthermore, if there is nothing left to debate; what is neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Public Goods Hypothesis and the post-Modern Theory of Evolution all doing vying for a position at the table?

And importantly -- which do you hold to, and what is wrong with the others?

 

[HapticSimian]

LOL

Unbelievable unbelievable amounts of LOL!

You really don't keep uptodate with current events do you, just to what level of understanding we currently have surrounding the inner workings of the cell.. Your arguments are tired and old. Put down The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, and pick up a couple journals.

Furthermore, if there is nothing left to debate; what is neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Equilibrium, Public Goods Hypothesis and the post-Modern Theory of Evolution all doing vying for a position at the table?

And importantly -- which do you hold to, and what is wrong with the others?

Please don't misrepresent me. I've not argued that there's nothing to debate, but merely that proponents of ID aren't legitimate parties to any such debate. I'm very happy for you that your insipid strawman brought you such abundant amusement.