Post #134,445
1/9/04 2:32:54 AM
|
Re: One more time with feeling
How about that? Can you trust something based on false findings? I certainly cannot. The whole Haeckel thing is a red herring. The underlying information that is revelent to Evolutionary theory is correct, despite Haeckel's exaggeration of features in the drawings to make them conform better to his own non-Darwinin theory. The important part, that embryo growth shows various structural forms and changes that reflect evolution is true. This has been extensivly studied since Haeckel's time, and it does support evolution. That Haeckel's drawings still turn up sometimes in school books is a reflection of how bad the process for making them is, not a reflection of Evolutionary theory. If I believe that ID is invalid and you think it is valid, one of us is wrong.
How do we determine which one is wrong? Can I use the above example of the false findings that Darwin based his theory on? Would that help?
Your on roughly the right track, but as I pointed out above the Haeckel story doesn't hold up. It would also be helpful is you spelled out exactly what you do believe, since it seems to me to be a blending of Creationism and ID. Also, keep in mind that you need to make your case in a positive way, it not enough to show that Evolution is wrong, you have to show that your theory is right. Jay
|
Post #134,532
1/9/04 1:20:37 PM
|
Some more information
A book that was written at Amazon: [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801064430/qid=1073672003/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2675730-7780050?v=glance&s=books|http://www.amazon.co...?v=glance&s=books] A review of it:
Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins. Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,592
1/9/04 4:23:35 PM
|
What was the point of that?
Your pointing to a review of a book on Amazon as evidence?
The book you are pointing to is not even a book of ID theory, it is a history of the ID movement by a follower of the movement.
Jay
|
Post #134,714
1/10/04 1:05:16 PM
|
The point was
to explain where ID came from. To dispell the myth that it was created by Christians to get Creationism back in schools. If Atheists and Agnostics worked on the theory, then that myth gets busted.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,782
1/10/04 10:21:24 PM
|
Re: The point was
Not being able to read the book, I can't see if there is any real connection there or not. There is nothing in what I have seen about the book that says if covers the poltical background of the movement or not. Just reading the review I found one outright falsehood already. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). Phillip Johnson, the effective founder of the ID movement and the person that coined the ID name is a Creationist, by any defintion of the word. He believes that the Christian God created the universe and guided the creation of the species on earth. To try and claim he is not is absurd. As for the "I've got to stop" quote, the second part is pure slander, designed to imply that Gould would lie or cheat when there is no reason to think that Gould considered either. As a pro-evolution scientist and an activist in the area of increasing the quality of school biology education, Gould did want to stop creationists like Johnson from getting their material in school books. It didn't help that Gould disliked Johnson for misquoting him in Johnson's books. A good deconstruction of Johnson's first book can be found here [link|http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html|TalkDesign.org]. I can't find any discussion of the Doubts About Darwin book itself, being too new to have been really critiqued. Jay
|
Post #134,855
1/11/04 2:37:38 PM
|
Apparently you missed part of that review quote
Here let me show it to you:
Reviewer: A reader from Middle America
Doubts about Darwin is a very objective book about the Intelligent Design Movement (ID). This work, a revision of the author's Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of South Florida, has much information that is not commonly known, such as many of the forerunners of the ID movement were atheists or agnostics. For example, the role of such people as Murray Eden (professor emeritus at MIT) and other ID forerunners such as Professor Michael Denton (p. 24) are discussed. Many excellent quotes are included that show the dogmatic attitude of the Darwinists, such as Gould's statement to Professor Johnson calling him (falsely) a creationist and then emotionally proclaiming "I've got to stop" your work, obviously by any means he can (p. 96). This is hardly the attitude of an objective scientist intent on searching for the truth about origins.
Obviously you read the part about forerunners of the ID movement being atheists or agnostics. Maybe you forgot it and focused on the "I've got to stop your work" part? Only way to know for sure is to read that book.
Woodward, a college professor himself, documents the many unethical attacks by the so called science and university establishment against those who dare to question Darwin. Rarely are Darwin doubters given an opportunity to respond to attacks against them in the journals that published the attacks and, thus, few people have an objective understanding of the movement. Reading sections of this book at times made me ashamed to be a scientist. Woodward does note that many scientists have been objective and fair critics, even supportive of ID, such as University of Chicago Professor David Raup (I was a fan of his work long before I learned about his positive contribution's to ID). The book also tries to answer questions such as, why more and more people are having serious doubts about Darwinism, who they are, and why the ID movement is growing so fast. The motive for the growth of ID is clearly major "doubts about Darwinism" and the book covers these in some detail. Now what is needed is an objective book on ID by a professional historian.
It documents the many attacks on the ID movement. Again I guess you need to read the book to learn what they are. If I wasn't so poor, I'd pay the $13.99USD to buy a copy and read it. I'd like to learn more myself. See what parts I can follow and understand.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,920
1/12/04 12:21:32 AM
|
"Were atheists" ne "are atheists"
My experience is that people who have changed belief systems tend to be far more aggressive about it than those who haven't. When I spent time on atheist newsgroups, the ones who had grown up fundamentalist christian were by far the most radical. Looking the other way, you don't have to look farther than C.S. Lewis to see what a Christian who used to be an atheist acts like.
People with a memory of IWETHEY history can just remember Ben Kosse and Nick Petreley to see examples each way of this, with each having made the opposite transition in beliefs.
Therefore the revelation that key members of the ID movement were once atheists doesn't surprise me. I'd have expected that. Doubly so since acceptance of a personally acceptable compromise between existing scientific evidence and their developing religious faith could well have been a key part of converting for them.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #135,075
1/12/04 3:19:08 PM
|
I saw that
Obviously you read the part about forerunners of the ID movement being atheists or agnostics. I saw that part, I just didn't read that much into it. Forerunners covers a lot of ground beyond those that actually founded the ID movement. Jay
|
