Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1. closing remarks; 2. Unposted quotes #10

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Group Last day. It is now T minus ~6.5 hours and counting! On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:53:18 +0600, Bilim wrote: BH Hi Steve! ... Thanks to Bilim. BH I have found
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Group

      Last day. It is now T minus ~6.5 hours and counting!

      On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:53:18 +0600, Bilim wrote:

      BH>Hi Steve!
      >
      >I would like to take this opportunity for your fruitful work with CED.

      Thanks to Bilim.

      BH>I have found this list to be informative and kept active by highly
      >skilled debaters. Though not much of a lurker to many creation-
      >evolution lists, i think i can rightly say CED does make (or rather has
      >made) a difference.

      Well, it has made "a difference" to me! I can only hope it has made "a
      difference" to others (creationist and evolutionist).

      BH>As all members would appreciate, it was very
      >generous of you to take the time to supply each post of yours with a
      >tag-line quote.

      Thanks for this especially. My tagline quotes are one of the permanent things
      I take with me from CED. I realised early on how ephemeral the debates
      were, and that when they were all over and forgotten, I would have nothing
      unless I saved the quotes I generated in those debates.

      BH>I emphatize that creationist members, being information miners
      >against evolutionism all of us, should be happy with your decision to
      >switch to blogging. For the very reason that your blog will offer much
      >more "concentrated gold" than CED does.

      Thanks even more for this. It is one of the problems of a list that it is like
      a kindergarten and a university all in the one room. Those who like their
      "gold" mixed up with the dross, will prefer a list. Those who have moved
      beyond that and just want the "concentrated gold", will prefer blogs.

      BH>Cedders! I tell you: You are at loss if you are not connected to Steve's
      >mind! Thank God, he has a mind that has penetrated to over 1.000
      >origins books.

      I am at "at loss" how to respond to this! Actually, I thought I would take the
      opportunity to add them up from the totals of my books pages
      <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooks.html> and the grand total
      listed is 1342. But there are probably at least 200 that are not listed, so
      the total of C/E (including all science and Christianity) books I own is about
      1,500. However, that is peanuts compared to some scholars. I was reading
      in one of my Shroud of Turin books of one of the scientists who had 30,000
      books!

      BH>And I also thank Paul K who has been keen on answering virtually all
      >questions in the group, showing he is "always prepared to give an
      >answer". He has invested great time and efforts to CED, which have
      >certainly contributed to the running of the company.

      I second that. Paul has been a great asset to CED and a great help and
      encouragement to me.

      BH>All the best wishes in your efforts to defend faith in God with
      >knowledge,

      Thanks again to Bilim. I hope to hear from you on my blog, CED
      <http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/>.

      Steve

      PS: Here are another ~30K of unposted quotes.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Take the idea of the map. We use maps all the time and we think nothing
      of how they work. Our modern maps are complete and clear; there is
      nothing missing and there is nothing we cannot understand. Old maps
      show some regions with a reasonable degree of certainty. But then
      knowledge fails and the imagination of the mapmaker takes over. The
      region of the known shades away into myths and fairy stories dragons and
      giants at the world's end, a landscape of chaos beyond the limits of order.
      There was a line drawn to mark the limits of human knowledge. There was
      an outside, a beyond. Now our maps are complete, but not because we
      have been everywhere and seen everything. Our maps are complete
      because we have found a better way of making them that excludes the
      need for dragons. Indeed, the golden key to the success of science is
      precisely captured by the realization that we can map places without
      visiting them. By drawing lines of longitude and latitude and by
      astronomical observation we can produce an effective picture of the whole
      world. Imagine you are a traveller looking round an alien landscape. There
      are trees, rivers and mountains. But they are meaningless in themselves.
      You cannot say where you are simply because of that mountain or this
      tree. You can spend your days finding out everything about what you see,
      but it will never tell you where you are. But if I give you an effective map
      with your mountain and your river marked upon it, the world is
      transformed. You can calculate your position relative to all other
      positions." (Appleyard B., "Understanding the Present: Science and the
      Soul of Modern Man," Picador: London, 1992, pp.5-6)

      "On a visit to Leningrad some years ago I consulted a map to find out
      where I was, but I could not make it out. From where I stood, I could see
      several enormous churches, yet there was no trace of them on my map.
      When finally an interpreter came to help me, he said: `We don't show
      churches on our maps.' Contradicting him, I pointed to one that was very
      clearly marked. `That is a museum,' he said, `not what we call a 'living
      church.' It is only the 'living churches' we don't show.' It then occurred to
      me that this was not the first time I had been given a map which failed to
      show many things I could see right in front of my eyes. All through school
      and university I had been given maps of life and knowledge on which
      there was hardly a trace of many of the things that I most cared about and
      that seemed to me to be of the greatest possible importance to the conduct
      of my life. I remembered that for many years my perplexity had been
      complete; and no interpreter had come along to help me. It remained
      complete until I ceased to suspect the sanity of my perceptions and began,
      instead, to suspect the soundness of the maps. The maps I was given
      advised me that virtually all my ancestors, until quite recently, had been
      rather pathetic illusionists who conducted their lives on the basis of
      irrational beliefs and absurd superstitions. Even illustrious scientists, like
      Johannes Kepler or Isaac Newton, apparently spent most of their time and
      energy on nonsensical studies of nonexisting things. ... Our entire past,
      until quite recently, was today fit only for museums, where people could
      satisfy their curiosity about the oddity and incompetence of earlier
      generations. What our ancestors had written, also, was in the main fit only
      for storage in libraries, where historians and other specialists could study
      these relics and write books about them, the knowledge of the past being
      considered interesting and occasionally thrilling but of no particular value
      for learning to cope with the problems of the present. All this and many
      other similar things I was taught at school and university, although not in
      so many words, not plainly and frankly. It would not do to call a spade a
      spade. Ancestors had to be treated with respect: they could not help their
      backwardness; they tried hard and sometimes even got quite near the truth
      in a haphazard sort of way. Their preoccupation with religion was just one
      of their many signs of underdevelopment, not surprising in people who
      had not yet come of age. Even today, of course, there remained some
      interest in religion, which legitimized that of earlier times. It was still
      permissible, on suitable occasions, to refer to God the Creator, although
      every educated person knew that there was not really a God, certainly not
      one capable of creating anything, and that the things around us had come
      into existence by a process of mindless evolution, that is, by chance and
      natural selection. Out ancestors, unfortunately, did not know about
      evolution, and so they invented all these fanciful myths. The maps of
      *real* knowledge, designed for *real* life, showed nothing except things
      which allegedly could be *proved* to exist. The first principle of the
      philosophical mapmakers seemed to be `If in doubt, leave it out,' or put it
      into a museum. It occurred to me, however, that the question of *what
      constitutes proof* was a very subtle and difficult one." (Schumacher E.F.*,
      "A Guide for the Perplexed," [1977], Harper & Row: New York NY,
      1978, reprint, pp.1-3. Emphasis in original)

      "The success of the scientific enterprise can often blind us to the
      astonishing fact that science works. Although most people take it for
      granted, it is both incredibly fortunate and incredibly mysterious that we
      are able to fathom the workings of nature by use of the scientific method.
      As I have already explained, the essence of science is to uncover patterns
      and regularities in nature by finding algorithmic compressions of
      observations. But the raw data of observation rarely exhibit explicit
      regularities. Instead we find that nature's order is hidden from us, it is
      written in code. To make progress in science we need to crack the cosmic
      code, to dig beneath the raw data and uncover the hidden order. ... What is
      remarkable is that human beings are actually able to carry out this code-
      breaking operation, that the human mind has the necessary intellectual
      equipment for us to `unlock the secrets of nature' and make a passable
      attempt at completing nature's `cryptic crossword.' It would be easy to
      imagine a world in which the regularities or nature were transparent and
      obvious to all at a glance. We can also imagine another world in which
      either there were no regularities, or the regularities were so well hidden, so
      subtle, that the cosmic code would require vastly more brainpower than
      humans possess. But instead we find a situation in which the difficulty of
      the cosmic code seems almost to be attuned to human capabilities. To be
      sure, we have a pretty tough struggle decoding nature, but so far we have
      had a good deal of success. The challenge is just hard enough to attract
      some of the best brains available, but not so hard as to defeat their
      combined efforts and deflect them onto easier tasks. The mystery in all this
      is that human intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological
      evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science. Our
      brains have evolved in response to environmental pressures, such as the
      ability to hunt, avoid predators, dodge falling objects, etc. What has this
      got to do with discovering the laws of electromagnetism or the structure of
      the atom? John Barrow is also mystified: `Why should our cognitive
      processes have tuned themselves to such an extravagant quest as the
      understanding of the entire Universe?' he asks `Why should it be *us*?
      None of the sophisticated ideas involved appear to offer any selective
      advantage to be exploited during the pre-conscious period of our
      evolution. ... How fortuitous that our minds (or at least the minds of some)
      should be poised to fathom the depths of Nature's secrets [Barrow J.,
      "Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation," Oxford
      University Press: Oxford, 1991, p.172]." (Davies P.C.W., "The Mind of
      God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992] Penguin:
      London, 1993, reprint, pp.148-149)

      "... Darwin's theory of natural selection made any invocation of teleology
      unnecessary. From the Greeks onward, there existed a universal belief in
      the existence of a teleological force in the world that led to ever greater
      perfection. This `final cause' was one of the causes specified by Aristotle.
      After Kant, in the Critique of Judgment, had unsuccessfully attempted to
      describe biological phenomena with the help of a physicalist Newtonian
      explanation, he then invoked teleological forces. Even after 1859,
      teleological explanations (orthogenesis) continued to be quite popular in
      evolutionary biology. The acceptance of the Scala Naturae and the
      explanations of natural theology were other manifestations of the
      popularity of teleology. Darwinism swept such considerations away. (The
      designation `teleological' actually applied to various different phenomena.
      Many seemingly end-directed processes in inorganic nature are the simple
      consequence of natural laws-a stone falls or a heated piece of metal cools
      because of laws of physics, not some end-directed process. Processes in
      living organisms owe their apparent goal- directedness to the operation of
      an inborn genetic or acquired program. Adapted systems, such as the heart
      or kidneys, may engage in activities that can be considered goal seeking,
      but the systems themselves were acquired during evolution and are
      continuously fine- tuned by natural selection. Finally, there was a belief in
      cosmic teleology, with a purpose and predetermined goal ascribed to
      everything in nature. Modern science, however, is unable to substantiate
      the existence of any such cosmic teleology.)" (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's
      Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1,
      pp.67-71, July 2000, p.70)

      "... Darwin does away with determinism. Laplace notoriously boasted that
      a complete knowledge of the current world and all its processes would
      enable him to predict the future to infinity. Darwin, by comparison,
      accepted the universality of randomness and chance throughout the
      process of natural selection. (Astronomer and philosopher John Herschel
      referred to natural selection contemptuously as `the law of the higgledy-
      piggledy.') That chance should play an important role in natural processes
      has befit an unpalatable thought for many physicists. Einstein expressed
      this distaste in his statement, `God does not play dice.' Of course, as
      previously mentioned, only the first step in natural selection, the
      production of variation, is a matter of chance. The character of the second
      step, the actual selection, is to be directional." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's
      Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1,
      pp.67-71, July 2000, p.70)

      "Despite the initial resistance by physicists and philosophers, the role of
      contingency and chance in natural processes is now almost universally
      acknowledged. Many biologists and philosophers deny the existence of
      universal laws in biology and suggest that all regularities be stated in
      probabilistic terms, as nearly all so-called biological laws have exceptions.
      Philosopher of science Karl Popper's famous test of falsification therefore
      cannot be applied in these cases." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on
      Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July
      2000, p.70)

      "... Darwin developed a new view of humanity and, in turn, a new
      anthropocentrism. Of all of Darwin's proposals, the one his contemporaries
      found most difficult to accept was that the theory of common descent
      applied to Man. For theologians and philosophers alike, Man was a
      creature above and apart from other living beings. Aristotle, Descartes and
      Kant agreed on this sentiment, no matter how else their thinking diverged.
      But biologists Thomas Huxley and Ernst Haeckel revealed through
      rigorous comparative anatomical study that humans and living apes clearly
      had common ancestry, an assessment that has never again been seriously
      questioned in science. The application of the theory of common descent to
      Man deprived man of his former unique position. Ironically, though, these
      events did not lead to an end to anthropocentrism. The study of man
      showed that, in spite of his descent, he is indeed unique among all
      organisms. Human intelligence is unmatched by that of any other creature.
      Humans are the only animals with true language, including grammar and
      syntax. Only humanity, as Darwin emphasized, has developed genuine
      ethical systems. In addition, through high intelligence, language and long
      parental care, humans are the only creatures to have created a rich culture.
      And by these means, humanity has attained, for better or worse, an
      unprecedented dominance over the entire globe." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's
      Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1,
      pp.67-71, July 2000, p.70)

      "... Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics. The question is
      frequently raised-and usually rebuffed-as to whether evolution adequately
      explains healthy human ethics. Many wonder how, if selection rewards the
      individual only for behavior that enhances his own survival and
      reproductive success, such pure selfishness can lead to any sound ethics.
      The widespread thesis of social Darwinism, promoted at the end of the
      19th century by Spencer, was that evolutionary explanations were at odds
      with the development of ethics We now know, however, that in a social
      species not only the individual must be considered-an entire social group
      can be the target of selection. Darwin applied this reasoning to the human
      species in 1871 in The Descent of Man. The survival and prosperity of a
      social group depends to a large extent on the harmonious cooperation of
      the members of the group, and this behavior must be based on altruism.
      Such altruism, by furthering the survival and prosperity of the group, also
      indirectly benefits the fitness of the group's individuals. The result
      amounts to selection favoring altruistic behavior. Kin selection and
      reciprocal helpfulness in particular will be greatly favored in a social
      group. Such selection for altruism has been demonstrated in recent years to
      be widespread among many other social animals. One can then perhaps
      encapsulate the relation between ethics and evolution by saying that a
      propensity for altruism and harmonious cooperation in social groups is
      favored by natural selection. The old thesis of social Darwinism-strict
      selfishness-was based on an incomplete understanding of animals,
      particularly social species." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern
      Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000,
      pp.70-71)

      "Let me now try to summarize my major findings. No educated person any
      longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we
      now know to be a simple fact. Likewise, most of Darwin's particular theses
      have been fully confirmed, such as that of common descent, the
      gradualism of evolution, and his explanatory theory of natural selection."
      (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific
      American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July 2000, p.71)

      "I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the
      Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times
      and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to
      say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a
      scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of
      Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God
      did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it
      came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person
      or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that
      God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as
      to what man is and man's relationship to God." (Graham W., in Frost D. &
      Bauer F, "Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man," Chariot
      Victor Publishing: 1999, pp.72-74)

      "One can now ask, as Enrico Fermi once did, why Mars is not smeared out
      around the sun in the same way as an electron is smeared out around an
      atom. In other words, given that the universe was born in a quantum event,
      how has an essentially nonquantum world emerged? When the universe
      originated, and was very small, quantum uncertainty engulfed it. Today,
      we do not notice any residual uncertainty in macroscopic bodies. Most
      scientists have tacitly assumed that an approximately nonquantum (or
      "classical," to use the jargon) world would have emerged automatically
      from the big bang, even from a big bang in which quantum effects
      dominated. Recently, however, Hartle and Gell-Mann have challenged this
      assumption. They argue that the existence of an approximately classical
      world, in which well-defined material objects exist at distinct locations in
      space, and in which there is a well defined concept of time, requires
      special cosmic initial conditions. Their calculations indicate that, for the
      majority of initial states, a generally classical world would not emerge. In
      that case the separability of the world into distinct objects occupying
      definite positions in a well-defined background space-time would not be
      possible. There would be no locality. It seems likely that in such a
      smeared-out world one could know nothing without knowing everything.
      Indeed, Hartle and Gell-Mann argue that the very notion of traditional laws
      of physics, such as Newtonian mechanics, should be regarded not as truly
      fundamental aspects of reality, but as relics of the big bang, and a
      consequence of the special quantum state in which the universe originated.
      If it is a so the case, as remarked briefly above, that the strengths and
      ranges of the forces of nature are likewise dependent on the quantum state
      of the universe, then we reach a remarkable conclusion. Both the linearity
      .and the locality of most physical systems would not be a consequence of
      some fundamental set of laws at all, but would be due to the peculiar
      quantum state in which the universe originated. The intelligibility of the
      world, the fact that we can progressively discover laws and extend our
      understanding of nature-the very fact that science works-would not be an
      inevitable and absolute right, but could be traced to special, perhaps highly
      special, cosmic initial conditions. The unreasonable effectiveness" of
      mathematics in its application to the natural world would then be due to
      unreasonably effective initial conditions. (Davies P.C.W., "The Mind of
      God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning," [1992], Penguin:
      London, 1993, pp.159-160)

      "Since evolution as a biogenic process obviously involves an interaction of
      all of the above agents, the problem of the relative importance of the
      different agents unavoidably presents itself. For years this problem has
      been the subject of discussion. The results of this discussion so far are
      notoriously inconclusive; the "theories of evolution" arrived at by different
      investigators seem to depend upon the personal predilections of the
      theorist. One of the possible sources of this situation may be that a theory
      which would fit the entire living world is in general unattainable, since the
      evolution of the different groups may be guided by different agents."
      (Dobzhansky T.G., "Genetics and the Origin of Species," [1937],
      Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1982, reprint, p.186)

      "Biologists classify animals (and other organisms) by taxonomic
      categories such as families, orders, classes, and phyla. A superficial
      classification might group the whale, the penguin, and the shark together
      as aquatic creatures, and birds, bats, and bees together as dying creatures.
      But the basic body design of birds, bats, and bees is fundamentally
      different, their reproductive systems are different and even their wings are
      similar only in the sense that they are all fit for flying. Accordingly, all
      taxonomists agree that the bat and the whale should be grouped with the
      horse and the monkey as mammals, despite the enormous differences in
      behavior and adaptive mechanisms. Bees are built on a fundamentally
      different body plan from vertebrates of any kind, and go into a different
      series of groupings altogether. Biologists before and after Darwin have
      generally sensed that in classifying they were not merely forcing creatures
      into arbitrary categories, but discovering relationships that are in some
      sense real. Some pre-Darwinian taxonomists expressed this sense by
      saying that whales and bats are superficially like fish and birds but they are
      *essentially* mammals-that is, they conform in their "essence" to the
      mammalian "type." Similarly, all birds are essentially birds, whether they
      fly, swim, or run. The principle can be extended up or down the scale of
      classification: St. Bernards and dachshunds are essentially dogs, despite
      the visible dissimilarity, and sparrows and elephants are essentially
      vertebrates. Essentialism did not attempt to explain the cause of natural
      relationships, but merely described the pattern in the language of Platonic
      philosophy. The essentialists knew about fossils and hence were aware
      that different kinds of creatures had lived at different times. The concept
      of evolution did not make sense to them, how ever, because it required the
      existence of numerous intermediates impossible creatures that were
      somewhere in transition from one essential state to another. Essentialists
      therefore attributed the common features linking each class not to
      inheritance from common ancestors, but to a sort of blueprint called the
      "Archetype," which existed only in some metaphysical realm such as the
      mind of God. Darwin proposed a naturalistic explanation for the
      essentialist features of the living world that was so stunning in its logical
      appeal that it conquered the scientific world even while doubts remained
      about some important parts of his theory. He theorized that the
      discontinuous groups of the living world were the descendants of long-
      extinct common ancestors. Relatively closely related groups (like reptiles,
      birds, and mammals) shared a relatively recent common ancestor; all
      vertebrates shared a more ancient common ancestor; and all animals
      shared a still more ancient common ancestor. He then proposed that the
      ancestors must have been linked to their descendants by long chains of
      transitional intermediates, also extinct. According to Darwin:

      `We may thus [by extinction] account even for the distinctness of whole
      classes from each other-for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate
      animals-by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly
      lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected
      with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes.' [Darwin C.R.,
      "The Origin of Species," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons:
      London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.400)

      This theory of descent with modification made sense out of the pattern of
      natural relationships in a way that was acceptable to philosophical
      materialists. It explained why the groups seemed to be part of the natural
      framework rather than a mere human invention-to the Darwinist
      imagination, they are literally families. When combined with the theory of
      natural selection, it explained the difference between the common features
      that are relevant to classification (*homologies*) and those that are not
      (*analogies*). The former were relics of the common ancestor; the latter
      evolved independently by natural selection to provide very different
      creatures with superficially similar body parts that were useful to such
      adaptive strategies as flight and swimming. In Darwin's historic words:

      `All the ... difficulties in classification are explained ... on the view that the
      natural system is founded on descent with modification: that the characters
      which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or
      more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent,
      and in so far, all true classification is genealogical; that community of
      descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously
      seeking, and not some unknown Plan of creation, or the enunciation of
      general propositions, and the mere putting together and separating objects
      more or less alike.' [Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," [1872],
      Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928,
      reprint, p.400)

      Darwin ended his chapter by saying that the argument from classification
      was so decisive that on that basis alone he would adopt his theory even if
      it were unsupported by other arguments. That confidence explains why
      Darwin was undiscouraged by the manifold difficulties of the fossil
      record: his logic told him that descent with modification had to be the
      explanation for the "difficulties in classification," regardless of any gaps in
      the evidence."(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity
      Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.63-65. Emphasis
      original)

      "What will be the fate of Dembski, Gordon, and their Michael Polanyi
      Center? It's up to one man only -- President Robert Sloan. He can bow to
      faculty pressure and dissolve the present Polanyi Center, perhaps restaffing
      it with scholars more to the faculty's liking; or clip Dembski's wings by
      taking away his ability to raise money to run programs. Or he can stand
      behind the man he hired, make the case that science should be about facts,
      not McCarthyite lynch mobs -- and take the heat that will surely be
      generated by disgruntled faculty and their sympathetic media. Either way,
      the ultimate victim or victor won't be Bill Dembski, it will be unbiased
      science and humanity's quest to discover the truth -- wherever that truth
      leads us." (Heeren F., "The Lynching of Bill Dembski," The American
      Spectator, November 2000.
      http://www.fsf.vu.lt/filk/mps/Being%20Methodologically%20Correct.htm


      "Non-lawyers often wonder how a lawyer can advocate one position, while
      at the same time privately believing that a different position is true. The
      answer is that many lawyers employ a thought process that entirely avoids
      putting themselves into that dilemma. Upon receiving a case, a lawyer who
      uses this process immediately inquires what result the client wants, and
      asks himself first *not* "what are the facts" but "what facts must be true so
      that my side wins what it seeks?" After determining what facts need to be
      true for the client to win, the lawyer *then* looks at the data and the
      applicable law and in every instance asks "can I understand this data, in
      light of the applicable law, to be evidence proving the facts that need to be
      true for my side to win?" The lawyer then, as much as possible, mentally
      adopts an understanding of the data as evidence for the facts that need to
      be true if the goal is to be achieved. The process is not unbounded; the
      lawyer's assessment of what the court might accept as a proper
      interpretation of the data bounds what the lawyer will believe and then
      advocate. But the key point is that at no time does the lawyer need to step
      back and say "what is my assessment of this data *independent* of the
      interest of my client?" The lawyer's independent assessment of the facts is
      irrelevant to the client's goals, and usually is irrelevant to any other interest
      of the lawyer, so she or he need spend no effort developing such an
      assessment. Thus the lawyer never has in mind two conflicting
      understandings of the data; the lawyer only develops the understanding
      that is closest to a reasonable interpretation of the data as evidence for the
      facts that gain the goal the client seeks. In experienced lawyers, this mental
      process goes on entirely unconsciously. If the party on the other side of the
      case had retained the lawyer first, the lawyer, using the same mental
      process, would develop an entirely different understanding of the data."
      (Sisson E., "Teaching the Flaws in Neo-Darwinism," in Dembski W.A.,
      ed., "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism
      Unconvincing," ISI Books: Wilmington DL, 2004, pp.84-85. Emphasis in
      original)

      "There is also a unique reason why scientists are particularly averse to
      developing an opinion that the theory of unintelligent evolution cannot
      explain all of the diversity of life on earth, and that an intelligent-designer
      theory may be necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life. In
      litigation, even if a lawyer does develop an internal belief about the data
      that conflicts with the presentation he or she needs to make in court, the
      lawyer is expected to keep that belief private. The lawyer's obligation is
      not to be *actually* sincere but to *appear* sincere. Thus there is no
      danger to the lawyer's livelihood if the lawyer develops a private
      understanding of the data that conflicts with the understanding to be
      presented in court. But in science the rule is different. Scientists are
      supposed to be *actually* sincere. They are supposed to develop genuine,
      individual opinions about the data and then express those opinions. Thus it
      is vital to a scientist's career *not* to develop opinions which, if
      expressed, will end that career, because opinions once developed are
      supposed to be expressed, not hidden in favor of expressing opinions the
      scientist does not sincerely believe. For brevity's sake, we may call this the
      "sincerity rule." Because of the fear that to admit the presence of
      intelligent design would undermine the social predominance of science
      (and thus its funding and prestige), no leader of a major American
      scientific institution can publicly abandon the paradigm of unintelligent
      evolution and yet retain his position of leadership. As in any human
      organization, the people who most effectively advance the interests of the
      scientific establishment are the ones chosen to lead the establishment.
      Those who impede the achievement of the establishment's ends are
      rejected. Thus, there is simply no purpose for scientists to take the time to
      consider the challenges to the paradigm and develop an individual
      response, because if that response is a rejection of the paradigm, the
      scientist must either suppress it (and violate the rule that scientists should
      be sincere) or else express it (and likely end his career). Everyone below
      the top on the hierarchy ladder knows that to question unintelligent
      evolution will mean the end of career advancement; so for them, too, there
      is simply no incentive to consider that the challenges to unintelligent
      evolution might be valid. On the contrary, there are very strong incentives
      not to consider those challenges in any way that might lead to accepting
      them. The "sincerity rule" means that if scientists develop a *disbelief* in
      unintelligent evolution, they must express it. Thus, preservation of career
      advancement opportunities is predicated on the maintenance of belief in
      unintelligent evolution. That is why challenges to the theory of evolution
      at best will receive a condescending hearing in forums dominated or
      controlled by the science establishment." (Sisson E., "Teaching the Flaws
      in Neo-Darwinism," in Dembski W.A., ed., "Uncommon Dissent:
      Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," ISI Books: Wilmington
      DE, 2004, pp.87-88. Emphasis in original)

      "In discussing the Biblical cosmology we must return to our general
      position defended earlier in this chapter: the references of the writers of
      the Bible to natural things are popular, non-postulational, and in terms of
      the culture in which the writers wrote. This principle applies directly to
      Biblical cosmology. The language of the Bible with reference to
      cosmological matters is in terms of the prevailing culture. Biblical
      cosmology is in the language of antiquity and not of modern science, nor is
      it filled with anticipations which the future microscope and telescope will
      reveal. We do not agree with over-zealous expositors who try to find
      Einsteinian and modern astro-physical concepts buried in Hebrew words
      and expressions. We also disagree with the religious liberals who object to
      Biblical cosmology because it is not scientific. We object to the over
      zealous because it was not the intention of inspiration to anticipate modern
      science, and we object to the modernist because he sees too much in what
      is to us a truism. We concur with Calvin, who taught that Gen. 1 is a
      record of the creation of the world in the language of the common man and
      from the viewpoint of common sense. His actual words are: `For to my
      mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the
      visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other
      recondite arts, let him go elsewhere ... It must be remembered, that Moses
      does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states
      those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and
      which are in common use.' [Calvin J., Genesis, I, 79 & 84] (Ramm B.L.,
      "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster:
      Exeter, Devon, 1967 reprint, pp.65-66)

      'The distinction between man and the beasts is qualitative, not substantive.
      It is not that man has or is a soul, spirit, heart, mind,` will, affective being,
      but that man's non-material being is a person created in the image of God.
      When we read in Gen. 2:7 that God breathed into man `the breath of life,
      and man became a living soul,' neither the phrase `breath of life' nor
      `living soul,' distinguishes man from the animals, for in Gen. 7:21, 22, we
      read, `And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of
      cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
      earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that
      was in the dry land, died:' Here both man and beast are referred to as
      having `the breath of life:' In these two instances the same Hebrew words
      are used. In Genesis 2:7, the phrase referring to man is nishemath chayyim,
      `breath of life:' In Gen. 7:22 the Hebrew words referring to the animals
      and man are nishemath ruach chayyim, `breath of spirit of life:' The
      phrase, `breath of life' translating ruach chayyim, `spirit of life,' frequently
      refers to animals as well as man (See Gen. 6:17; 17:15). The phrase,
      `living soul,' nephesh chayyah, used of man in Gen. 2:7, very commonly
      refers to the animals. See, for example, the Hebrew text of Gen. 1:21, 24,
      2:19, where these words are translated `living creature.'" (Buswell J.O., Jr.,
      "A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion," [1962], Zondervan:
      Grand Rapids MI, Vol. I, 1968, Second printing, pp.241-242)

      Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
      Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • Cliff Lundberg
      From: Stephen E. Jones ... Who will get in the last word, like an eBay bidder? ... I thought them annoying, like messages that offered
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>

        > Last day. It is now T minus ~6.5 hours and counting!

        Who will get in the last word, like an eBay bidder?

        > BH>As all members would appreciate, it was very
        >>generous of you to take the time to supply each post of yours
        >>with a
        >>tag-line quote.

        I thought them annoying, like messages that offered a link with no
        explanation of what's interesting about the link. Were they
        intended
        to support the message, or were they just willy-nilly, as
        irrelevant to
        the topic as a banner ad? Was the tag-liner expected to argue in
        defence of his tag-line quote? Or was he to be allowed to post
        stuff
        without having to defend it? It doesn't matter now. I'm just glad
        everyone doesn't do that with their messages. At least they were
        always different, unlike the sig files that people repetitively
        broadcast with their e-mails.

        The blog seems a logical development, and I will follow Steve's
        example
        in my own way, probably not utilizing a blog service, just because
        I want
        the thing to be all mine, and I don't want people to have to
        register with
        some unknown corporation. Perhaps Steve will eventually do that,
        using his
        problemsofevolution.com domain name, and we can exchange some
        thoughts
        about blogging.

        Cliff
      • wdwilder@wmconnect.com
        bye it s been informitive and interesting [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          bye it's been informitive and interesting


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stephen E. Jones
          Group T minus 1 hour and 40 minutes! On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:38:00 EDT, wdwilder@wmconnect.com wrote: DW bye it s been informitive and interesting Thanks to
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 22, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Group

            T minus 1 hour and 40 minutes!

            On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:38:00 EDT, wdwilder@... wrote:

            DW>bye it's been informitive and interesting

            Thanks to Doug.


            On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:42:20 EDT, wdwilder@... wrote:

            DW>what the blog address I missed it mine is Godscienceandfaith@.../

            That blog URL did not work for me.

            Thanks for your contribution and best wishes.

            Steve

            PS: This (see tagline) wa an incomplete quote in my backlog, now
            completed. That is the end of my backlog! If anyone is interested in my
            quotes, I will still keep posting them, but since I will be posting a lot less
            emails, it will be directly to my Unclassified Quotes pages
            <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequcqts.html> for each month.

            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
            "The reductionist approach seeks to analyze complex matters into simple
            concrete entities in exact, measurable terms. So far as we can do this, we
            master phenomena. `Reductionism is without question the most successful
            analytical approach available to the experimental scientist' (John and
            Miklos 1988, vii). Scientific reductionism deserves much credit for
            countless wonders from antibiotics to spacecraft. The successes of
            reductionism inspire the hope that fullness of understanding requires only
            more and better knowledge and analysis. That is, all natural phenomena
            should ultimately be made describable in terms of the elementary particles
            of matter, electrons, quarks, and the rest; their qualities should be
            knowable and are to be tied into a `Grand Unified Theory.' Reductionist
            science would like to see everything from physics through chemistry and
            biology to psychology as potentially or theoretically explicable in purely
            material terms. Although many phenomena are admittedly too complex for
            concrete analysis, it is the scientific faith that everything is ultimately
            learnable except why the universe exists-a question that can be ignored as
            unanswerable. Michael Ruse holds that `the whole is composed of nothing
            but its parts.... An organism is nothing but the molecules of which it is
            made' (Ruse 1988, 24). In this view, living organisms are nothing more
            than elaborate physicochemical systems, the product of genes, or nucleic
            acid sequences, reacting with their surroundings. Thoughts are the
            workings of the coordinative capacities of the organism; they are
            electrochemical phenomena, produced by neurons and their synapses with
            neurotransmitters and changes of potential across membranes. Everything
            should be mechanistically understandable as the behavior of material
            substance guided by the laws of physics. `The ultimate aim of the modern
            movement in biology,' according to Francis Crick, `is to explain all
            biology [his emphasis] in terms of physics and chemistry' (Crick 1966,
            10). Most biologists would probably agree with Crick. " (Wesson R.G.,
            "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994,
            reprint, p.3)
            Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
            Blog: http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Book, "Problems of
            Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.