David,
It certainly is funny how evolutionists tell ID/creationists to have an open mind while the evolutionists close themselves off to nothing but evolution.
Hi David,
Thanks for directing my attention to that article. I also have some fun with Mirecki here.
Why shouldn't a specialist in myths be allowed to call a myth "a myth?"
Once again we see the seminal problem with veracity that ID has as a movement: ID only works if we get to use doublespeak to redefine all the terms.
Heck, telling whoppers to state agencies in hearings can be justified that way -- a lie is really just "teaching the controversy."
Of course, it's also false that, in science, there is controversy.
In group 3, how many people do you think there are, really? A dozen? Half that many?
Bet you can't find one who is doing research on ID.
I have to agree with Ed here. There is clearly minimal dissention among scientists, It may actually be anti-Christian bigotry that drove the venom behind Mr. Mirecki’s remark, but who can blame him? The scientific community is under attack from the religious community. Scientists remember all to well the history and result of religious attack.
Later
When has the scientific community been under attack? Let's not stereotype the few who do as representative of the whole. Many Christians are into science and are scientists (we're not talking about the scientology crowd).
Science and the Bible go together well.
http://www.clarifyingchristianit...m/
science.shtml
One can look at Genesis Chapter 2 where God put Adam to sleep before surgery (taking out a rib). As late as the US Civil War, surgeries (amputations) were done by strapping or holding people down and sawing as fast as the surgeon was able. God provided the knowledge and wisdom of anesthesia if one looked.
Anyway, there are lots of scientists including the PhD types who are into creation/ID. If you want to name names, you can begin with a book called In Six Days, that lists a variety of scientists (PhD types) who provide their views from their respective fields. These fields include physics, biology, botany, zoology, organic chemistry, microbiology, etc. These are people who are way smarter in their fields than the typical dissenter in these posts to ask and research the proper questions and information.
Elvis
Creationists have disguised their belief (thinly) and tried to invade the world of science. How else can this be perceived other than an attack on science.
I also believe that religion and science can coexist but they need to leave each other to their specialties. You do not see biology professors going to church demanding that evolution be given equal time in Sunday school. If they did it would be a huge indignity to both parties. What the science community did not realize, is that anyone would take ID seriously, to them it seemed absurd. Evolution has testable and predictable results, ID does not.
Last September scientists mapped the chimps DNA, over 3 billion codes, they did not find anything they did not expect but they did perform a test for evolutionary accuracy.
Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.
"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.
Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.
They did this again on mice and canines both were predicted accurately.
See www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article for more details.
On the other hand in the Bible you have things like this.
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1: 3-5)
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." (Genesis 1:16-17)
God creates day and night on the first day and then makes the stars and the two great lights (sun and moon) on the fourth day (Genesis 1:19). How can you have day and night on the first day without a star? To have a day, there must exist a rotating planet and a sun. Genesis proves that God (or more accurately, the authors of Genesis) could not have known about the structure of the universe, or even the difference between stars and planets.
"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10:12-13)
This event is not only impossible but insinuates that the sun revolves around the earth. Not the best science I can think of. It is fine as a faith based story/lesson but I do not see this kind of thinking helping in the world of science.
As for the Adam’s rib argument, I will again remind you when the Biblical scriptures were being written, or should I say written and rewritten, anesthetic was available. Only when the church took over Europe, and the dark ages came, did that knowledge get lost to the western cultures.
Religion has been a bane of science for a while now, and again religion is trying to poke its nose where it does not belong.
Later
Fran,
The sun standing still is not a violation of science. It is a miracle. By definition, miracles are outside the realm of science; otherwise they would be called "tricks." Most people understand that, and they exempt the 100 or so biblical miracles from the debate. If you want to find where the bible and science are in conflict, you should examine the bulk of scripture in which miracles are not being discussed.
You are correct: religion and science are at odds. However, this doesn’t have to be the case—at least for Christianity—because the bible and science are not in conflict.
Having said that, I will not, yet again, address questions about (1) bats as birds (2) pi = 3 (3) rabbits chewing cud and (4) four legged insects. These have been asked and answered a semi-infinite number of times.
You need to recheck your history of anesthetic. Passing out from pain does not count as anesthesia. Knocking out patients by a blow to the head does not count. Bleeding someone until they pass out does not count. Herbs applied to local areas after cutting does not count. Ignoring pain by some people through their meditation practices does not count. People were still tied up on the table.
http://www.hmcnet.harvard.edu/an...ory/
vandam.html
The Bible does not insinuate the sun rotates around the earth. Is English your first language? In fact, on the earth subject, the Bible clearly states that the earth is a sphere while people have said it was flat. See Isaiah 40:22.
Evolution testable? You may want to rethink that one. Have you been around the "so called" billions of years to make the observations per what evolution asks for? Extrapolation is not necessarily the truth.
Thought experiment. When God made Adam, Adam was a 30 something human. If an atheistic scientist from today made the observational snippet at 1 second after Adam's creation, that scientist would say that Adam was 30 something instead of 1 second. Is the observation correct? Based on the given science of what is known to scientists about humans, yes, the observation was correct with the known information to the scientist. Is the observation the truth? No, the observation on the truth was not correct as Adam was 1 second not 30 something years.
As with dissenters, these conversations are useless if you do not believe in God's miracles. I'm not here to convince you of God's miracles. You must make that decision on your own.
Since you hold degrees as a status, there are much smarter people than us who hold the PhDs that believe as I do and know the intricacies involved with life that evolution just cannot answer. These scientists were inundated with evolution until their quest for knowledge led them to God and Creation.
David and Elvis
No offence but a miracle, I say show me, there are no records of it in any historic documents. A miracle must be proven to me. I question the validly of the Bible so if you want to argue miracles I need proof. You demand proof from me on my arguments so I am going to hold you to the same standard, you too Elvis.
These little gems did not get the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens" either. According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world. Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.
David I assume you know that theories do not prove anything, they work by ruling things out. Elvis this is the testable part, not to mention the article I showed you. Science is self correcting so let it do its job with out judging. Elvis, as far as your specific questions birds and bats, give Science a chance, there is a long way to go yet, but give them time. The answers to those questions may change the theory.
Elvis here we go again
That passage does insinuate that the sun moves around the earth. The Lord said, Sun stand still, not earth stand still. Stopping the sun does nothing, relative to the earth, the sun is stationary. God must of had our solar system set up differently back then.
Oh here is a sampling of Roman anesthetics you said did not exist.
Anesthetics did not compare to today’s standards but were available. They used opium, henbane, and mandrake. Opium numbed the patient and limited movement. Henbane induced sleeping and a slight amnesia. Finally, mandrake slowed the heart rate and deadened pain. Even with the help of these anesthetics, the standard for a good surgeon was speed!
J Walsh 2001
SOURCES:
• Adkins, Lesley and Roy A. Adkins, ed. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. (New York; Oxford Universtiy Press, 1994)
• Davis, William Stearns. A Day in Old Rome. (New York; Biblo and Tannen, 192
• James, Peter and Nick Thorpe. Ancient Inventions (New York; Ballentine Books, 1994)
Elvis there you go with the trickster God again. Here is the answer to your thought experiment.
If God is omnipotent and he created the Earth aged, he knew many people would mistake the data; therefore he tricked many of us out of believing in him.
Another thing, just because someone has a degree does not make them more intelligent, infallible or creditable. It certainly does not remove brainwashing or change their beliefs.
And because I have never needed a God I am not in the market for belief in miracles. Especially from a book that was likely rewritten dozens of times by people of questionable character.
Later
It is amazing how the human cognizance of evil is always in our minds. If Dr. Mirecki feels he is so right -- why did he not sign "Righteous Dr. P" rather than "Evil Dr. P."
That sidenote in your very insightful treatise-blog for today validates for me this verse from my Bible study last night:
John 16:8 (New International Version)
When he [The Holy Spirit] comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.
Wow! Great blog! I'm a new subscriber!
See Frank, herb usage. And, check your timeline, it is after God provided the wisdom to people via Genesis. Whether some people listened or rejected God's wisdom is a different story. Just as we have people today who reject God.
And, why was the standard for the surgeon speed? It's because the faster the surgeon cut and sawed, the less time the patient felt pain, or so the thought for the time.
I'll pray for you Frank. I hope that you can see that life all around are miracles of God. You want the proof, it is all around you. Yet, you can't see it.
Elvis
The Romans learned about medicine from the Greeks not from God. If that knowledge had been passed down by God wouldn’t the Jews have been the experts? The Romans believed Christianity to be a silly cult with nothing substantial to offer. They believed this for hundreds of years after the alleged death of Christ. In fact people discovered to be Christians were executed under Roman rule.
The usage of herbs is all there was in ancient times, and is where we get our anesthetics today, unless you are talking magic. But they were used much the same way as today’s anesthetics. The goal was to bring the patient to an unconscious state with the drugs. But determining dosage without exact measurements of the patient’s weight, any potential resistance to the drugs, or a way to continuously administer the drugs, this was difficult. If the patient was unconscious it saved everyone trouble, but to reach that state without risking overdose was risky. Speed was necessary, but mostly because of blood loss, there was no way to replace the blood once lost, so prolonged surgery was dangerous.
Even with many questionable doctors in the Roman civilization, they had a relatively advanced surgery system. The scientific knowledge of the body, gained largely from the Greeks, gave them the basis to perform many surgeries with the skill and success rate of today. Common surgeries ranged from small tumor removal to hernia operations. They also had more highly skilled surgeries, which did not occur as often, but which still impress the student of history.
The Romans incorporated both a scientific and mythological approach to medicine and health care. They adopted much of the Greeks' scientific data concerning medicine. Primarily, the teachings of Hippocrates (460 – 384 BC) gave the Romans a holistic look at medicine and the treatment of illnesses and diseases.
As a matter of fact I can’t find anything showing medical procedures in the Bible, or any passage showing that any person used the equivalent of modern medical techniques.
If, as you claim, God gave medicine to mankind, then why is it, that the early church said that disease was the result of personal sin? Here is the way your bible advises a person to behave when sick.
"Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." Jas. 5: 14-15
I suggest you try this the next time you get sick. Your preacher is going to tell you to go to the doctor. He will still pray for you I’m sure, but you would be ill advised to stop there.
The sawing and bleeding, you speak of happened during the dark and middle ages, The eras when the Christian church was in control. They were not even as advanced as the pagans before them. The holy church somehow lost the teachings of God? And then medical scientists had to pick up the slack over the last 2 centuries. Is this what you are saying?
Thanks for the prayers though.
Later
Elvis,
"It certainly is funny how evolutionists tell ID/creationists to have an open mind while the evolutionists close themselves off to nothing but evolution."
Um, Elvis, it was I that admitted that I don't know for sure that Genesis is not correct. It was I that admitted that evolution may not be correct. Yet, you say that I have a closed mind and you don't? More hubris I see.
"I certainly hope that there are scientifically literate students who take Mirecki’s class, and pounce on him anytime he mentions that ID is not science."
Mr. Heddle, you have said yourself that you do not think ID is science. So, do you support lying?
Elvis,
"Evolution testable? You may want to rethink that one. Have you been around the "so called" billions of years to make the observations per what evolution asks for? Extrapolation is not necessarily the truth."
Um, are you for real? Evolution made a prediction. That prediction was tested for accuracy. How is that not a test of evolution?
I love reading this stuff, the craetinists/IDers do such a good job of making themselves look stupid and in having no morals at all. Not surprising from people that don't think peiple can be ethical by themselves and need to be coerced. There can be no question that evolution is a fact. ID is rubbish.
Rob,
It is not a matter of ethics. It is not a matter of being good enough. Jesus didn't come to earth to make bad people good but rather to make dead people live!
As for these posts making anyone look immoral -- I don't see that from either side.
It makes me very sad that many good people like yourself miss the point of life. Have a great day!
BrightIdeaguru,
What you missed is that Rob is commenting on the immorality of those who espouse the Creationist/ID side of things. When it comes to evolution denial, they are full of lies, deceit, and denial, which I think you can agree is immoral.
Just for some clarification, since you Christians claim to be interested in integrity. It was not an email from Dr. Mirecki, it was a posting on what he thought was a private bulletin board, on which a Christian had infiltrated and SPIED. The mole leaked the "email" to the press. Quite Christian of him!
Dr Mirecki is the staff sponsor for the Society of Open-Minded Atheists/Agnostics (SOMA) on campus, and "The Evil Dr. P" is our nickname for him. The "big fat faces" comment stems from a running joke we've had in our discussion-meeting groups for months about what would happen if someone bothered to actually teach a course on what ID is really about-- see the infamous Wedge Document and the Dover trial transcripts that reveal under oath that ID is not a science at all, unless you redefine "science" to include astrology (look it up!).
Intercepting a private communique with a niche group and pretending an inside joke is a statement of principle on the part of Dr. Mirecki is dishonesty at its worst, and is typical of what I'd expect from the Christian right. Watching other Christians pick up and repeat the lie as if it were truth is also par for the course.
What's a little truth, when the lie-story is just soooo good?
As someone has pointed out, there is not really a list of researchers in ID who are disagreeing with evolution-- only a list of people in other fields willing to sign their names to a "I don't like evolution" list. Only two or three guys claim to do anything remotely like ID research and they were interviewed on the witness stand and embarassed thoroughly in the Dover, PA trial. Do not be dishonest and claim that a list of signatures by PhDs equals a contesting research field. I am a field biologist, and I take offense at that very notion.
Now please, Christians, a little intellectual honesty, for once? I know you can do it.
UnapologeticAtheist,
My reporting was based on a newspaper article, not a stolen email. I would not believe, regardless of protestations to the contrary, that if Dembski or Behe posted an embarassing “email” to a listserv that (a) got out and (b) was published and picked up by a wire service that you would be reluctant to quote published accounts.
“Do not be dishonest and claim that a list of signatures by PhDs equals a contesting research field. I am a field biologist, and I take offense at that very notion.”
And I said such a thing, where? True, I am one of the 450 or so Ph.D.s on the list, but where did I claim that the DI list constituted a rival research effort? I’m not even a biological ID proponent. You must have me confused. The list, as I view it, is merely a protest against fundamentalism.
By the way, as others have pointed out, (and speaking of intellectual honesty) why isn’t “Piltdown man” listed on your T-shirts? Was that an oversight?
Piltdown man:
http://www.talkorigins.org/index...c/CC/
CC001.html
Your report is based on a newspaper article which was generated by a Christian who stole the bulletin board post (not an email!) and then emailed its content to the paper, who printed it despite our request for them not to do so. I am pointing out the facts of the case and wondering why Christians keep sticking to the clearly-out-of-context citation instead of wondering why one of the most highly-respected theologians might sound "like a third grader". To us, it was a running joke, and quite funny. Pulled out of context, as the fundamentalist Christian did, and as repeated by the paper, it becomes something else entirely. Do you even care about that?
Yeah, actually Piltdown Man would be an excellent example of a mythological creature for our shirts. Thanks! I'm sorry we didn't think of it. I'll point out this oversight next time the shirts are redesigned. Out of curiousity, why do you mention it? Piltown man was a major PROBLEM for evolutionary theory because it didn't fit the currently-existing models of human evolution, and years later they figured out why it didn't fit, when better tests became available. Are you trying to suggest that the other discovered hominid fossils are also fabricated? Otherwise it strikes me as nothing more than a rude wise-crack on your part, though it IS an excellent suggestion. I just don't think 99% of the people out there would get the joke, negating the point of the shirts. Don't you think?
Some in the discussion so far have suggested pretty strongly that the ID list of PhDs are some kind of list of researchers who have knowledge against evolution-- yet while everyone is quick to point out that Mirecki isn't completley qualified to criticize scientific research since he has a theology doctorate, you turn a blind eye to the fact that a Physics PhD (for instance) isn't really qualified to comment on biological diversity. Do you think the list is NOT designed to give such an impression? I always hear ID proponents here in Kansas saying "teach the controversy", and I just can't figure out what controversy they're referring to, unless they mean your list of "researchers". As someone who does active research in biodiversity and evolutionary ecology, it's a little offensive to see a list of mathematicians and physicists claiming to be an "opposing view" to my own work. To put it another way, how would you feel if I (when I finish my doctorate), put my name on a list of people challenging quantum mechanics? What the hell would I know about quantum mechanics!? But my Dr. Soandso, PhD, looks really good on that list.
There is no fundamentalism involved in biological research-- we go with what works, and the evolutionary theory works quite well for us... just like the Germ Theory of Disease works for doctors and Relativistic Motion Theory works quite well for NASA researchers. Calling it fundamentalism when NASA rejects the "intelligent theory of motion" that once suggested that God placed the planets on their paths across the heavens (rather than being guided by boring old gravity and inertia) is insulting to the NASA researchers who successfully use RMT to place probes on Mars.
Heh it erased my name, but clearly the above is by me.
The reason for the Piltdown man is rather obvious—and nothing more than the fact that it was conspicuously absent. I hope you do add it to your t-shirt. Let me know when that’s been done.
As for Mirecki being a prominent theologian—you’ve got to be kidding.
Let us not forget that he began his email with the salutation: “To my fellow damned.” Rarely an intro that, say, Augustine or Aquinas was known to employ. As for him sounding like a third-grader—well he did. Deal with it.
He does, however, perfectly embody one of my favorite quotes:
“If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”-- Heinemann prize (Mathematical Physics) winner Robert Griffiths.
“Some in the discussion so far have suggested pretty strongly that the ID list of PhDs are some kind of list of researchers who have knowledge against evolution.”
What physics Ph.D? Are you talking about me? I don’t talk about biological diversity. I talk about fine-tuning, or cosmological ID. If you are concerned with what somebody has suggested, then you should take it up with him.
The bottom like is that Mericki got caught. Although how it happened may be a story in its own right, that’s not my problem. I read it in a newspaper, and therefore, regardless of how it arrived, it was in the public domain. Still, I think your making way too much out of the circumstances. He sent an email (or a post) to a listserv. It’s not like he had his phone tapped.
Actually, Mirecki IS a foremost religious authority, and I'm sorry if you don't recognize the significance of his research. He is the guy who translated one of the most recently-discovered lost gospels. Had I gotten my PhD at Harvard, and discovered the most recently-described new vertebrate species (a big deal), I'd hope people would refer to me as a foremost biological authority.
I'm kind of embarassed for you that you think a quotation like that means anything. Though my closest friend in college among the professors was a Christian and PhD physics researcher. Hell of a guy. I recognize that you (like this professor I mentioned) belive in the "God set the laws of physics to work perfectly well with one another to produce the universe He wanted" style of ID. But that's not what that list of ID-supporters is about, and you're a dangerous kind of blind if you don't recognize and acknowledge the motivations of the way you're being USED by the Discovery Institute. That you allow yourself to continue to be used to insinuate, as they do, that "many" scientists support the same kind of ID they're promoting is dishonest and I hope you take a long hard look at your own ethical code.
All of SOMA's listserves are private, except one which we approve all applicants for, so new people can find out more about our group. Mirecki was unaware that the one group was accessible by moles who had not been screened, and so felt free to speak to us in the tones we usually use among our own group. If that constitutes "being caught", fine, but it's still the result of someone intentionally shadowing our group, seeking to do just the kind of damage they have done. It was in the newspaper because of the action of this mole. You can keep turning a blind eye to this, of course. It's exactly what I'd expect from a theist after dealing with theists for a great many years.
We're an informal group. We joke about "herding cats" when it comes to getting us to agree about anything. We start our conversations with "fellow heathens" or "fellow damned" etc. Among ourselves, we quite often sound like third-graders, because it's fun and it's funny to let loose among people you like and trust.
Or to put it another way, how many members of SOMA do you think join religious right student group boards, looking to cause them grief? I'll give you a hint-- you can't divide by the answer.
"By the way, as others have pointed out, (and speaking of intellectual honesty) why isn’t “Piltdown man” listed on your T-shirts? Was that an oversight?
David Heddle"
Funny how some people are so steeped in Intellectual Dishonesty that even their charges of intellectual dishonesty in others are Intellectually Dishonest.
"The reason for the Piltdown man is rather obvious—and nothing more than the fact that it was conspicuously absent."
Intellectual honesty would require one to consider whether it really is conspicuously absent, and to recognize that, instead, its presence would make for an easy "odd man (sic) out" question. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an actual physical artifact crafted to appear to be something it wasn't. The skull fragment was from a real human, not a mythical creature. And the jaw was from a real ape, not a mythical creature. The closest one finds in mythology are portmanteau creatures like the griffin and chimera, but a) these myths exist independent of real artifacts, and b) no one noticed their "conspicuous" absence from the list. If Piltdown Man were to be added, then these too should be added, as well as the creationists' Moab and Malachite Man. And if adding such frauds, others such as Cyril Burt's twins and the Raelian clone should be considered. Of course, careful consideration of all of this makes one thing above all most conspicuous -- David Heddle's I(ntellectual)D(ishonesty).
Well, yes, Elvis, I want you to name names. It's patently odd that you claim a lot of scientists back ID, and yet not one of them does any research in the area, nor does one of them have plans to research it, nor in 15 years have any of them had the time to put down on paper and submit to a journal the hypothesis for ID, which would win them the Nobel were there a few scintillas of evidence to back it.
A list of 500 Ph.D.s backing intelligent design is a vanishingly small group, made more vanishing and morally small by their inability to back such a claim with any research.
Yes, name names. Got one?
Commenting by HaloScan
