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

Re: historical geology/biology: was the most compellingevidence

Expand Messages
  • pk4_paul
    ... All ... Darwinian ... person ... The ... sample by ... questions. ... of ... the ... that ... for ... goal ... that a ... in ... Paul: The key point is
    Message 1 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
      --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, Donald Nield
      <d.nield@a...> wrote:
      > Group:
      >
      > pk4_paul wrote:
      >
      > > Phil:
      > > > > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I have done a large survey of modern research
      > > > > biologists, the kind that do
      > > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
      > > > > focuses on
      > > > > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done
      > > their work
      > > > > any differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong.
      All
      > > have told me it would have
      > > > > > > made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
      > > > > what, in their minds,
      > > > > were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
      > > > > > > century.
      > > > > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on
      Darwinian
      > > > > Concepts for the breakthroughs.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of
      > > > > biologists excluding those whose
      > > > > > work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
      > > > > that is a heavily biased
      > > > > > survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
      > > > > > responses that he wanted.
      > > > > > Don
      > > > >
      > > > Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one
      > > > who endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased
      > > > in the other direction?
      > > >
      > > > No. The infererence is invalid. It is not the view of the
      person
      > > who
      > > > does the conducting that necessarily introduces the bias here.
      The
      > > > survey was biased by the decision to restrict the survey
      sample by
      > > > excluding biologists whose work focusses on historical
      questions.
      > > This
      > > > is critical when the survey is concerned with the importance
      of
      > > > historical biology. The survey need not have been biased, but
      the
      > > > exclusion has made it so.
      > > > Don
      > >
      > > Paul: Anyone whose work involved historic biology would claim
      that
      > > Darwinian concepts were important. It's a given. What remains
      > > unexplained is how interpretations of biological history account
      for
      > > medical advances or advances in any biology related field.
      > >
      >
      > We are now getting away from the point that I started with -- the
      goal
      > posts have been moved. Since I have no expertise in biology, and in
      > particular none in applied biology, I do not wish to argue this new
      > matter at any length. However, I would have thought it obvious
      that a
      > study of what genetic changes (and their effects) have taken place
      in
      > the past would throw light on what manipulated genetic changes (and
      > their effects) are likely to be feasible in the future.

      Paul: The key point is whether these genetic changes in the past are
      documented through observation as is the case with some genetic
      mutations or are they assumed (as has been the case with stretches
      of "junk" DNA) based on the assumption of common descent.

      > Incidentally, would you not expect that the people whose work
      involved
      > historic biology would be the ones who would be most competent to
      assess the importance of what was involved in their own work?

      Paul: Would you assume this if the individuals believed in design?
      >
      > A related incidental matter -- I am curious about the number of
      people
      > taking part in Phil's survey who are active in genetic
      manipulation.
      > Don
    • Phil Skell
      Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has contributed other than polemical support for a materialist world view---interesting that even
      Message 2 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
        Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has contributed
        other than polemical support for a materialist world view---interesting
        that even Darwin thought that was his most significant contribution.

        At 09:13 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
        >Group:
        >
        >Phil Skell wrote:
        >
        > > At 06:11 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
        > > >Group:
        > > >
        > > >Phil Skell wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Don, Have you compared the data from fossils and that from
        > > modern
        > > > > bioresearch(for example Glicksman), for their reproducibility,
        > > > > usefulness? Phil
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >No, I have not done so. I see no reason for me to do so. I have
        > > already
        > > >conceded that there is a substantial difference in the amount of
        > > >evidence that is available for historical biology compared with that
        > > for
        > > >historical geology. My point is simply that Phil has no warrant for
        > > >making a sharp separation between historical biology and modern
        > > >experimental biology, just as he has no warrant for making a sharp
        > > >separation between historical geology and modern experimental
        > > geology.
        > > >Don
        > >
        > >
        > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
        > >
        > > I have done a large survey of modern research biologists, the kind
        > > that do
        > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work focuses
        > > on
        > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done their work
        > > any
        > > differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All have told
        > > me it
        > > would have made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me what,
        > > in
        > > their minds, were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
        > > century.
        > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian Concepts
        > > for the
        > > breakthroughs.
        > >
        > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
        > >
        >
        >Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists excluding
        >those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind that is a
        >heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
        >responses that he wanted.
        >Don
        >
        >
        >
        >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
        >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >ADVERTISEMENT
        ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129tcktan/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088729201/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
        >click here
        >
        >[]
        >
        >
        >
        >----------
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > *
        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
        >
        > *
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > *
        > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > *
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Phil Skell
        Thanks, Paul. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
          Thanks, Paul.

          At 09:24 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
          >Phil:
          > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
          > >
          > > I have done a large survey of modern research biologists, the kind
          >that do
          > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
          >focuses on
          > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done their
          >work any
          > > differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All have
          >told me it
          > > would have made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
          >what, in
          > > their minds, were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
          >century.
          > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
          >Concepts for the breakthroughs.
          > >
          > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
          > >
          >Paul: What are the scientific breakthroughs due to Darwinian
          >concepts? If they don't exist Phil's point has been made.
          >
          >
          >
          >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
          >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >ADVERTISEMENT
          ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129gjl5pu/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088731460/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
          >click here
          >
          >[]
          >
          >
          >
          >----------
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > *
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
          >
          > *
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > *
          > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > *
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Phil Skell
          Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist. Every person replied positively? Biased? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
          Message 4 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
            Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist. Every
            person replied positively? Biased?

            At 09:27 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
            >--- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, Donald Nield
            ><d.nield@a...> wrote:
            > > Group:
            > >
            > > Phil Skell wrote:
            > >
            > > > At 06:11 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
            > > > >Group:
            > > > >
            > > > >Phil Skell wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > > Don, Have you compared the data from fossils and that from
            > > > modern
            > > > > > bioresearch(for example Glicksman), for their
            >reproducibility,
            > > > > > usefulness? Phil
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >No, I have not done so. I see no reason for me to do so. I have
            > > > already
            > > > >conceded that there is a substantial difference in the amount of
            > > > >evidence that is available for historical biology compared with
            >that
            > > > for
            > > > >historical geology. My point is simply that Phil has no warrant
            >for
            > > > >making a sharp separation between historical biology and modern
            > > > >experimental biology, just as he has no warrant for making a
            >sharp
            > > > >separation between historical geology and modern experimental
            > > > geology.
            > > > >Don
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
            > > >
            > > > I have done a large survey of modern research biologists, the
            >kind
            > > > that do
            > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
            >focuses
            > > > on
            > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done their
            >work
            > > > any
            > > > differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All have
            >told
            > > > me it
            > > > would have made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
            >what,
            > > > in
            > > > their minds, were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
            > > > century.
            > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
            >Concepts
            > > > for the
            > > > breakthroughs.
            > > >
            > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
            > > >
            > >
            > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
            >excluding
            > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind that
            >is a
            > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
            > > responses that he wanted.
            > > Don
            >
            >Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one who
            >endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased in the other
            >direction?
            >
            >
            >
            >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
            >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            >ADVERTISEMENT
            ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129m7look/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088731682/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
            >click here
            >
            >[]
            >
            >
            >
            >----------
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > *
            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
            >
            > *
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > *
            > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > *
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
            > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Phil Skell
            ... The answers from historical biologists are trivially obvious. Of course the Darwinists would say d s Concepts were important, just as most Creationists
            Message 5 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
              At 10:53 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
              >Group:
              >Response at end.
              >
              >pk4_paul wrote:
              >
              > > --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, Donald Nield
              > > <d.nield@a...> wrote:
              > > > Group:
              > > >
              > > > Phil Skell wrote:
              > > >
              > > > > At 06:11 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
              > > > > >Group:
              > > > > >
              > > > > >Phil Skell wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > Don, Have you compared the data from fossils and that from
              > > > > modern
              > > > > > > bioresearch(for example Glicksman), for their
              > > reproducibility,
              > > > > > > usefulness? Phil
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >No, I have not done so. I see no reason for me to do so. I have
              > > > > already
              > > > > >conceded that there is a substantial difference in the amount of
              > > > > >evidence that is available for historical biology compared with
              > > that
              > > > > for
              > > > > >historical geology. My point is simply that Phil has no warrant
              > > for
              > > > > >making a sharp separation between historical biology and modern
              > > > > >experimental biology, just as he has no warrant for making a
              > > sharp
              > > > > >separation between historical geology and modern experimental
              > > > > geology.
              > > > > >Don
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
              > > > >
              > > > > I have done a large survey of modern research biologists, the
              > > kind
              > > > > that do
              > > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
              > > focuses
              > > > > on
              > > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done their
              > > work
              > > > > any
              > > > > differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All have
              > > told
              > > > > me it
              > > > > would have made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
              > > what,
              > > > > in
              > > > > their minds, were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
              > > > > century.
              > > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
              > > Concepts
              > > > > for the
              > > > > breakthroughs.
              > > > >
              > > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
              > > excluding
              > > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind that
              > > is a
              > > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
              > > > responses that he wanted.
              > > > Don
              > >
              > > Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one who
              > > endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased in the other
              > > direction?
              >
              >No. The infererence is invalid. It is not the view of the person who
              >does the conducting that necessarily introduces the bias here. The
              >survey was biased by the decision to restrict the survey sample by
              >excluding biologists whose work focusses on historical questions. This
              >is critical when the survey is concerned with the importance of
              >historical biology. The survey need not have been biased, but the
              >exclusion has made it so.
              >Don

              The answers from historical biologists are trivially obvious. Of course the
              Darwinists would say d's Concepts were important, just as most Creationists
              would say the opposite. My concern was what fueled the profoundly useful
              modern biology, not the scientifically inconsequential historical. Phil

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Phil Skell
              Paul, I hope you are not the only one who understands this point. Phil ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Message 6 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                Paul, I hope you are not the only one who understands this point. Phil

                At 11:36 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
                >Phil:
                > > > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > I have done a large survey of modern research
                > > > biologists, the kind that do
                > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
                > > > focuses on
                > > > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done
                >their work
                > > > any differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All
                >have told me it would have
                > > > > > made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
                > > > what, in their minds,
                > > > were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
                > > > > > century.
                > > > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
                > > > Concepts for the breakthroughs.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of
                > > > biologists excluding those whose
                > > > > work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                > > > that is a heavily biased
                > > > > survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                > > > > responses that he wanted.
                > > > > Don
                > > >
                > > Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one
                > > who endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased
                > > in the other direction?
                > >
                > > No. The infererence is invalid. It is not the view of the person
                >who
                > > does the conducting that necessarily introduces the bias here. The
                > > survey was biased by the decision to restrict the survey sample by
                > > excluding biologists whose work focusses on historical questions.
                >This
                > > is critical when the survey is concerned with the importance of
                > > historical biology. The survey need not have been biased, but the
                > > exclusion has made it so.
                > > Don
                >
                >Paul: Anyone whose work involved historic biology would claim that
                >Darwinian concepts were important. It's a given. What remains
                >unexplained is how interpretations of biological history account for
                >medical advances or advances in any biology related field.
                >
                >
                >
                >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
                >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >ADVERTISEMENT
                ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12918tliq/M=298184.5022502.6152625.3001176/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088739429/A=2164339/R=0/SIG=11e2d64in/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183348>
                >click here
                >
                >[]
                >
                >
                >
                >----------
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > *
                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
                >
                > *
                > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > *
                > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > *
                > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Phil Skell
                ... Yes, they might be useful, if there was any information. Mineralized fossils contribute nothing. ... No. ... They were involved. No other exclusions than
                Message 7 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                  At 01:22 AM 07/01/2004, you wrote:
                  >Group:
                  >
                  >pk4_paul wrote:
                  >
                  > > Phil:
                  > > > > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > I have done a large survey of modern research
                  > > > > biologists, the kind that do
                  > > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
                  > > > > focuses on
                  > > > > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done
                  > > their work
                  > > > > any differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All
                  > > have told me it would have
                  > > > > > > made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
                  > > > > what, in their minds,
                  > > > > were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
                  > > > > > > century.
                  > > > > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
                  > > > > Concepts for the breakthroughs.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of
                  > > > > biologists excluding those whose
                  > > > > > work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                  > > > > that is a heavily biased
                  > > > > > survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                  > > > > > responses that he wanted.
                  > > > > > Don
                  > > > >
                  > > > Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one
                  > > > who endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased
                  > > > in the other direction?
                  > > >
                  > > > No. The infererence is invalid. It is not the view of the person
                  > > who
                  > > > does the conducting that necessarily introduces the bias here. The
                  > > > survey was biased by the decision to restrict the survey sample by
                  > > > excluding biologists whose work focusses on historical questions.
                  > > This
                  > > > is critical when the survey is concerned with the importance of
                  > > > historical biology. The survey need not have been biased, but the
                  > > > exclusion has made it so.
                  > > > Don
                  > >
                  > > Paul: Anyone whose work involved historic biology would claim that
                  > > Darwinian concepts were important. It's a given. What remains
                  > > unexplained is how interpretations of biological history account for
                  > > medical advances or advances in any biology related field.
                  > >
                  >
                  >We are now getting away from the point that I started with -- the goal
                  >posts have been moved. Since I have no expertise in biology, and in
                  >particular none in applied biology, I do not wish to argue this new
                  >matter at any length. However, I would have thought it obvious that a
                  >study of what genetic changes (and their effects) have taken place in
                  >the past would throw light on what manipulated genetic changes (and
                  >their effects) are likely to be feasible in the future.

                  Yes, they might be useful, if there was any information. Mineralized
                  fossils contribute nothing.


                  >Incidentally, would you not expect that the people whose work involved
                  >historic biology would be the ones who would be most competent to assess
                  >the importance of what was involved in their own work?

                  No.


                  >A related incidental matter -- I am curious about the number of people
                  >taking part in Phil's survey who are active in genetic manipulation.
                  >Don

                  They were involved. No other exclusions than those who viewed history as
                  their major interest.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Bilim
                  On Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:10 PM, Phil Skell wrote: Paul, I hope you are not the only one who understands this point. Phil Bilim: Phil, no. Paul is not
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                    On Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:10 PM, Phil Skell wrote:

                    Paul, I hope you are not the only one who understands this point. Phil

                    Bilim: Phil, no. Paul is not alone on that. Actually, as Paul has already
                    highlighted, your opponents' failure to offer even "one" scientific
                    discovery (regarding medical advances) arising from Darwinists'
                    interpretation of biological history is crystal clear.

                    This discussion makes me remember these words from a French scientist:

                    "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing
                    in the progress of science. It is useless."
                    -*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the
                    National center of Scientific Research in France].

                    Ok, these words don't seem to be from an editorial in a prestigious
                    scientific journal, but they should still make us start thinking about the
                    fruitfulness of evolution science. If there were solid scientific advances
                    arising from historical interpretations of biology, a scientist in such a
                    prestigious position would surely know it! Also, he wouldn't take the risk
                    of being given the lie to while it would be much easy for evolutionists by
                    presenting a few counter examples.

                    But they couldn't do it in 1963, they can't do it in 2004.

                    I think, one should ask here what kind of gain is it to sustain evolutionist
                    research programme, if it's totally unable to supply solid examples of
                    contribution to modern biosciences? To me, the answer lies in things they
                    DON'T want their science to uncover. These words from Michael J. Behe are
                    most educative:

                    "Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of
                    the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands
                    of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of
                    the laboratory...
                    The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to
                    investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of
                    "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be
                    ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science... This
                    triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand
                    throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps
                    even be an excuse to take a day off.

                    But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious
                    embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the
                    subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit
                    labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed;many explicitly admit the
                    obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at
                    that.

                    Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling
                    discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual
                    gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled
                    intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God" (Michael J. Behe,
                    Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press 1996, pp. 232-233 )

                    This is not a kind of "following the evidence where it leads" behaviour, is
                    it? And here's the evolutionist's choice to that: Look away from that
                    biological evidence of design and invoke absurd evolutionary fairy tales. As
                    geneticist Richard Lewontin has candidly admitted:
                    'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
                    constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
                    promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
                    community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
                    commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
                    institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
                    of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
                    priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
                    and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
                    counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
                    that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
                    door.'(Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York
                    Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.)

                    For many people, the gain that the evolution science brings must lie largely
                    in the protection for their philosophical position. Indeed, like deer caught
                    in car headlights, scientists can freeze in one intellectual
                    position(materialialism) and be blind to everything else (evidence of
                    biological design).

                    IMHO, that's why Phil's crystal clear point is not made a matter of debate
                    in the scientific community. Questions like: What medical advance has
                    evolution theory brought about in modern biosciences? Why should hundreds of
                    millions of dollars be spent to suspend this evolutionary tale project each
                    year? are not asked because they are not allowed.

                    But things are beginning to change, thanks to ID movement and all design
                    advocates. I am glad to see prestigious scientists pressing on for opening a
                    free discussion of biological design. And I strongly hope that the old deer
                    will soon hear the klaxon and will perceive the right thing todo: STEP OUT
                    OF SCIENCE'S WAY !:-)

                    Note: I am a regular reader of Howard Glicksman. People on this list are
                    welcomed to read his articles at http://www.arn.org/eyw.htm

                    Bilim














                    > At 11:36 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
                    > >Phil:
                    > > > > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > I have done a large survey of modern research
                    > > > > biologists, the kind that do
                    > > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
                    > > > > focuses on
                    > > > > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done
                    > >their work
                    > > > > any differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All
                    > >have told me it would have
                    > > > > > > made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
                    > > > > what, in their minds,
                    > > > > were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
                    > > > > > > century.
                    > > > > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
                    > > > > Concepts for the breakthroughs.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of
                    > > > > biologists excluding those whose
                    > > > > > work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                    > > > > that is a heavily biased
                    > > > > > survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                    > > > > > responses that he wanted.
                    > > > > > Don
                    > > > >
                    > > > Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one
                    > > > who endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased
                    > > > in the other direction?
                    > > >
                    > > > No. The infererence is invalid. It is not the view of the person
                    > >who
                    > > > does the conducting that necessarily introduces the bias here. The
                    > > > survey was biased by the decision to restrict the survey sample by
                    > > > excluding biologists whose work focusses on historical questions.
                    > >This
                    > > > is critical when the survey is concerned with the importance of
                    > > > historical biology. The survey need not have been biased, but the
                    > > > exclusion has made it so.
                    > > > Don
                    > >
                    > >Paul: Anyone whose work involved historic biology would claim that
                    > >Darwinian concepts were important. It's a given. What remains
                    > >unexplained is how interpretations of biological history account for
                    > >medical advances or advances in any biology related field.
                  • Phil Skell
                    Thanks. Makes my day! Doubled the number who understand. By the way, is Bilim a nickname? I am not clear how to properly address you. Phil ... [Non-text
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                      Thanks. Makes my day! Doubled the number who understand.

                      By the way, is Bilim a nickname? I am not clear how to properly address
                      you. Phil


                      At 04:48 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:

                      >On Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:10 PM, Phil Skell wrote:
                      >
                      >Paul, I hope you are not the only one who understands this point. Phil
                      >
                      >Bilim: Phil, no. Paul is not alone on that. Actually, as Paul has already
                      >highlighted, your opponents' failure to offer even "one" scientific
                      >discovery (regarding medical advances) arising from Darwinists'
                      >interpretation of biological history is crystal clear.
                      >
                      >This discussion makes me remember these words from a French scientist:
                      >
                      >"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing
                      >in the progress of science. It is useless."
                      >-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the
                      >National center of Scientific Research in France].
                      >
                      >Ok, these words don't seem to be from an editorial in a prestigious
                      >scientific journal, but they should still make us start thinking about the
                      >fruitfulness of evolution science. If there were solid scientific advances
                      >arising from historical interpretations of biology, a scientist in such a
                      >prestigious position would surely know it! Also, he wouldn't take the risk
                      >of being given the lie to while it would be much easy for evolutionists by
                      >presenting a few counter examples.
                      >
                      >But they couldn't do it in 1963, they can't do it in 2004.
                      >
                      >I think, one should ask here what kind of gain is it to sustain evolutionist
                      >research programme, if it's totally unable to supply solid examples of
                      >contribution to modern biosciences? To me, the answer lies in things they
                      >DON'T want their science to uncover. These words from Michael J. Behe are
                      >most educative:
                      >
                      >"Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of
                      >the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands
                      >of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of
                      >the laboratory...
                      >The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to
                      >investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of
                      >"design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be
                      >ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science... This
                      >triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand
                      >throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps
                      >even be an excuse to take a day off.
                      >
                      >But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious
                      >embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the
                      >subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit
                      >labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed;many explicitly admit the
                      >obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at
                      >that.
                      >
                      >Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling
                      >discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual
                      >gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled
                      >intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God" (Michael J. Behe,
                      >Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press 1996, pp. 232-233 )
                      >
                      >This is not a kind of "following the evidence where it leads" behaviour, is
                      >it? And here's the evolutionist's choice to that: Look away from that
                      >biological evidence of design and invoke absurd evolutionary fairy tales. As
                      >geneticist Richard Lewontin has candidly admitted:
                      >'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
                      >constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
                      >promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
                      >community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
                      >commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
                      >institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
                      >of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
                      >priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
                      >and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
                      >counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
                      >that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
                      >door.'(Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York
                      >Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.)
                      >
                      >For many people, the gain that the evolution science brings must lie largely
                      >in the protection for their philosophical position. Indeed, like deer caught
                      >in car headlights, scientists can freeze in one intellectual
                      >position(materialialism) and be blind to everything else (evidence of
                      >biological design).
                      >
                      >IMHO, that's why Phil's crystal clear point is not made a matter of debate
                      >in the scientific community. Questions like: What medical advance has
                      >evolution theory brought about in modern biosciences? Why should hundreds of
                      >millions of dollars be spent to suspend this evolutionary tale project each
                      >year? are not asked because they are not allowed.
                      >
                      >But things are beginning to change, thanks to ID movement and all design
                      >advocates. I am glad to see prestigious scientists pressing on for opening a
                      >free discussion of biological design. And I strongly hope that the old deer
                      >will soon hear the klaxon and will perceive the right thing todo: STEP OUT
                      >OF SCIENCE'S WAY !:-)
                      >
                      >Note: I am a regular reader of Howard Glicksman. People on this list are
                      >welcomed to read his articles at
                      ><http://www.arn.org/eyw.htm>http://www.arn.org/eyw.htm
                      >
                      >Bilim
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > > At 11:36 PM 06/30/2004, you wrote:
                      > > >Phil:
                      > > > > > > > I am not long for more of this silliness.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > I have done a large survey of modern research
                      > > > > > biologists, the kind that do
                      > > > > > the research Glicksman describes, excluding those whose work
                      > > > > > focuses on
                      > > > > > > > historical questions, asking them if they would have done
                      > > >their work
                      > > > > > any differently if they believed Darwin's theory was wrong. All
                      > > >have told me it would have
                      > > > > > > > made no difference. Further I asked them to tell me
                      > > > > > what, in their minds,
                      > > > > > were great breakthrough biodiscoveries of the past
                      > > > > > > > century.
                      > > > > > > > None of the discoveries they offered depended on Darwinian
                      > > > > > Concepts for the breakthroughs.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > > Darwinism is not relevant to modern biology.
                      > > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of
                      > > > > > biologists excluding those whose
                      > > > > > > work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                      > > > > > that is a heavily biased
                      > > > > > > survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                      > > > > > > responses that he wanted.
                      > > > > > > Don
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > Paul: May I infer from this that any survey conducted by one
                      > > > > who endorses evolutionary theory would be likewise biased
                      > > > > in the other direction?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > No. The infererence is invalid. It is not the view of the person
                      > > >who
                      > > > > does the conducting that necessarily introduces the bias here. The
                      > > > > survey was biased by the decision to restrict the survey sample by
                      > > > > excluding biologists whose work focusses on historical questions.
                      > > >This
                      > > > > is critical when the survey is concerned with the importance of
                      > > > > historical biology. The survey need not have been biased, but the
                      > > > > exclusion has made it so.
                      > > > > Don
                      > > >
                      > > >Paul: Anyone whose work involved historic biology would claim that
                      > > >Darwinian concepts were important. It's a given. What remains
                      > > >unexplained is how interpretations of biological history account for
                      > > >medical advances or advances in any biology related field.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
                      >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >ADVERTISEMENT
                      ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129bm2dvr/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088801298/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
                      >click here
                      >
                      >[]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >----------
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > *
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
                      >
                      > *
                      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > *
                      > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > *
                      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Phil Skell
                      Don, I am not smart enough to understand you. Please make it simple for me. 1) send me an example of an important biodiscovery of the past century other than
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                        Don, I am not smart enough to understand you. Please make it simple for
                        me. 1) send me an example of an important biodiscovery of the past century
                        other than an historical one, and 2) put me in touch with your favorite
                        experimental bioscientist who will be willing to answer the question I have
                        directed to other such persons. Phil

                        At 05:51 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:
                        >Group:
                        >
                        >Phil Skell wrote:
                        >
                        > > Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has
                        > > contributed
                        > > other than polemical support for a materialist world
                        > > view---interesting
                        > > that even Darwin thought that was his most significant contribution.
                        >
                        >Historical biology has provided an understanding tying together a wide
                        >range of branches of biology. Science is not just a collection of
                        >separate disciplines as Phil is trying to make out it is, with each
                        >exeperimenter concerned only with what is immediately necessary for
                        >his/her current purpose.
                        >
                        >Phil also wrote:
                        >Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist. Every
                        >person replied positively? Biased?
                        >
                        >My response:
                        >Phil has evaded my point, which I repeat:
                        > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
                        > >excluding
                        > > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind that
                        > >is a
                        > > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                        > > > responses that he wanted.
                        >Please note the phrase " excluding those whose work focuses on
                        >historical questions" -- this is a direct quote from Phil's previous
                        >message.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
                        >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        >ADVERTISEMENT
                        ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129sk6hdj/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088803508/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
                        >click here
                        >
                        >[]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >----------
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > *
                        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
                        >
                        > *
                        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > *
                        > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > *
                        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Donald Nield
                        Group: ... Historical biology has provided an understanding tying together a wide range of branches of biology. Science is not just a collection of separate
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                          Group:

                          Phil Skell wrote:

                          > Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has
                          > contributed
                          > other than polemical support for a materialist world
                          > view---interesting
                          > that even Darwin thought that was his most significant contribution.

                          Historical biology has provided an understanding tying together a wide
                          range of branches of biology. Science is not just a collection of
                          separate disciplines as Phil is trying to make out it is, with each
                          exeperimenter concerned only with what is immediately necessary for
                          his/her current purpose.

                          Phil also wrote:
                          Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist. Every
                          person replied positively? Biased?

                          My response:
                          Phil has evaded my point, which I repeat:
                          > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
                          >excluding
                          > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind that
                          >is a
                          > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                          > > responses that he wanted.
                          Please note the phrase " excluding those whose work focuses on
                          historical questions" -- this is a direct quote from Phil's previous
                          message.
                        • mannasol1
                          I am confused by this tangential discussion on the value of the theory of evolution to modern biological research. As I understand the purpose of this group
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                            I am confused by this tangential discussion on the value of the
                            theory of evolution to modern biological research. As I understand
                            the purpose of this group as stated below,

                            "This list (CED) is for sharing and discussing creation, evolution
                            and design issues, with the aim of converging on the truth."

                            is by its definition a discussion of historical biology. The only
                            purpose of modern experimental biology, as it pertains to this
                            discussion, should be as a means of testing the proposed theories for
                            the origins of life and/or the species against the mearsurable and
                            experimental data available to us in the present.

                            If I understand Phil and the others' position is that since evolution
                            has had no application on modern biology in the form of reproducible
                            results, then it has no use. Further I understand that the lack of
                            results in the field of modern biology is somehow a proof that the
                            theory itself does not in fact represent the biological "truth" being
                            sought by this forum. Please correct me if I am terribly mincing
                            your words Phil.

                            However, any theory regarding historical biology need not necessarily
                            produce any valuable results in modern biology. In fact
                            evolutionists would certainly claim that we as human beings have not
                            even existed long enough on this planet to witness the outcome of
                            evolutionary theory let alone be able to experiment with it given the
                            timescales necessary for its application.

                            Nevertheless, there are means available to us to test these theories
                            in the same manner in which there are different means to analyze
                            historical geology, a science requiring even longer timescales.

                            I thought we were discussing the nature of the origins of life and
                            the development of life. Phil et al could you clarify your position
                            within the context of the goals of this forum?

                            JimB

                            --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, Phil Skell <tvk@p...>
                            wrote:
                            > Don, I am not smart enough to understand you. Please make it
                            simple for
                            > me. 1) send me an example of an important biodiscovery of the past
                            century
                            > other than an historical one, and 2) put me in touch with your
                            favorite
                            > experimental bioscientist who will be willing to answer the
                            question I have
                            > directed to other such persons. Phil
                            >
                            > At 05:51 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:
                            > >Group:
                            > >
                            > >Phil Skell wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has
                            > > > contributed
                            > > > other than polemical support for a materialist world
                            > > > view---interesting
                            > > > that even Darwin thought that was his most significant
                            contribution.
                            > >
                            > >Historical biology has provided an understanding tying together a
                            wide
                            > >range of branches of biology. Science is not just a collection of
                            > >separate disciplines as Phil is trying to make out it is, with each
                            > >exeperimenter concerned only with what is immediately necessary for
                            > >his/her current purpose.
                            > >
                            > >Phil also wrote:
                            > >Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist.
                            Every
                            > >person replied positively? Biased?
                            > >
                            > >My response:
                            > >Phil has evaded my point, which I repeat:
                            > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
                            > > >excluding
                            > > > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                            that
                            > > >is a
                            > > > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got
                            the
                            > > > > responses that he wanted.
                            > >Please note the phrase " excluding those whose work focuses on
                            > >historical questions" -- this is a direct quote from Phil's
                            previous
                            > >message.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >Remember: attack the *position* not the *person*!
                            > >Subscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >Unsubscribe: CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            > >ADVERTISEMENT
                            >
                            ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129sk6hdj/M=295196.4901138.6071305.30011
                            76/D=groups/S=1707281911:HM/EXP=1088803508/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6
                            /*http://companion.yahoo.com>
                            > >click here
                            > >
                            > >[]
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >----------
                            > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > > *
                            > >
                            <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/>http://groups.
                            yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/
                            > >
                            > > *
                            > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > > *
                            > > <mailto:CreationEvolutionDesign-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
                            subject=Unsubscribe>CreationEvolutionDesign-
                            unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >
                            > > *
                            > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                            > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Donald Nield
                            Group: ... I note that Phil has again side-stepped my explicit point about the bias. Instead he has made two further requests of me. Since I am not a
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                              Group:

                              Phil Skell wrote:

                              > Don, I am not smart enough to understand you. Please make it simple
                              > for
                              > me. 1) send me an example of an important biodiscovery of the past
                              > century
                              > other than an historical one, and 2) put me in touch with your
                              > favorite
                              > experimental bioscientist who will be willing to answer the question I
                              > have
                              > directed to other such persons. Phil
                              >
                              > At 05:51 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:
                              > >Group:
                              > >
                              > >Phil Skell wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has
                              > > > contributed
                              > > > other than polemical support for a materialist world
                              > > > view---interesting
                              > > > that even Darwin thought that was his most significant
                              > contribution.
                              > >
                              > >Historical biology has provided an understanding tying together a
                              > wide
                              > >range of branches of biology. Science is not just a collection of
                              > >separate disciplines as Phil is trying to make out it is, with each
                              > >exeperimenter concerned only with what is immediately necessary for
                              > >his/her current purpose.
                              > >
                              > >Phil also wrote:
                              > >Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist.
                              > Every
                              > >person replied positively? Biased?
                              > >
                              > >My response:
                              > >Phil has evaded my point, which I repeat:
                              > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
                              > > >excluding
                              > > > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                              > that
                              > > >is a
                              > > > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                              >
                              > > > > responses that he wanted.
                              > >Please note the phrase " excluding those whose work focuses on
                              > >historical questions" -- this is a direct quote from Phil's previous
                              > >message.

                              I note that Phil has again side-stepped my explicit point about the
                              bias. Instead he has made two further requests of me. Since I am not a
                              biologist (as I have previously emphasized) I will make no attempt to
                              act as Phil has requested Instead, I comment on the strangeness of his
                              first request. He asked that I provide "an example of an important
                              biodiscovery of the past century
                              other than an historical one". That depends on what one takes as
                              important, but surely there are hundreds of reasonably important
                              examples? Or is Phil implying that the only really important
                              biodiscoveries of the past century are historical ones?
                              Don
                            • Phil Skell
                              ... No. Quite the opposite. The most recent discovery that merited the cover of Time Mag, was the discovery in Ethiopia of a toe bone, which it was decided had
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                                At 06:56 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:
                                >Group:
                                >
                                >Phil Skell wrote:
                                >
                                > > Don, I am not smart enough to understand you. Please make it simple
                                > > for
                                > > me. 1) send me an example of an important biodiscovery of the past
                                > > century
                                > > other than an historical one, and 2) put me in touch with your
                                > > favorite
                                > > experimental bioscientist who will be willing to answer the question I
                                > > have
                                > > directed to other such persons. Phil
                                > >
                                > > At 05:51 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:
                                > > >Group:
                                > > >
                                > > >Phil Skell wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > > Interesting comment, Don. Tell me what historical biology has
                                > > > > contributed
                                > > > > other than polemical support for a materialist world
                                > > > > view---interesting
                                > > > > that even Darwin thought that was his most significant
                                > > contribution.
                                > > >
                                > > >Historical biology has provided an understanding tying together a
                                > > wide
                                > > >range of branches of biology. Science is not just a collection of
                                > > >separate disciplines as Phil is trying to make out it is, with each
                                > > >exeperimenter concerned only with what is immediately necessary for
                                > > >his/her current purpose.
                                > > >
                                > > >Phil also wrote:
                                > > >Every member of my survey was first asked if he was a Darwinist.
                                > > Every
                                > > >person replied positively? Biased?
                                > > >
                                > > >My response:
                                > > >Phil has evaded my point, which I repeat:
                                > > > > > Phil has just said that he has done a survey of biologists
                                > > > >excluding
                                > > > > > those whose work focuses on historical questions. To my mind
                                > > that
                                > > > >is a
                                > > > > > heavily biased survey. It is no surprise to me that Phil got the
                                > >
                                > > > > > responses that he wanted.
                                > > >Please note the phrase " excluding those whose work focuses on
                                > > >historical questions" -- this is a direct quote from Phil's previous
                                > > >message.
                                >
                                >I note that Phil has again side-stepped my explicit point about the
                                >bias. Instead he has made two further requests of me. Since I am not a
                                >biologist (as I have previously emphasized) I will make no attempt to
                                >act as Phil has requested Instead, I comment on the strangeness of his
                                >first request. He asked that I provide "an example of an important
                                >biodiscovery of the past century
                                >other than an historical one". That depends on what one takes as
                                >important, but surely there are hundreds of reasonably important
                                >examples? Or is Phil implying that the only really important
                                >biodiscoveries of the past century are historical ones?
                                >Don

                                No. Quite the opposite. The most recent discovery that merited the cover of
                                Time Mag, was the discovery in Ethiopia of a toe bone, which it was decided
                                had been part of a bipedal creature. Before that the cover story was the
                                discovery in Kenya, Kenyanthropus platyops(sp?), for which some fifty tiny
                                fragments were assembled into the skull cap of a presumptive early hominid.
                                On the basis of such finds artists will produce a handsome young male or
                                female for exhibition in museums.

                                If you had troubled to read the illustration of the hugely incisive, and
                                hugely valuable, detailed understanding of the human blood-clotting system
                                which has been developed by modern biologists, you might understand the
                                difference between historical and modern biology.

                                Yes, Don, that was a highly biased survey I had carried out. I have too
                                much self-respect as a scientist to confuse and conflate the modern and
                                historical sciences for the purpose of the sophistry you seem to
                                prefer. Phil

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • pk4_paul
                                ... understand ... for ... evolution ... reproducible results, then it has no use. Paul: None of us expect reproducible results. The point repeatedly made is
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                                  --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, "mannasol1"
                                  <mannasol@s...> wrote:
                                  > I am confused by this tangential discussion on the value of the
                                  > theory of evolution to modern biological research. As I
                                  understand
                                  > the purpose of this group as stated below,
                                  >
                                  > "This list (CED) is for sharing and discussing creation, evolution
                                  > and design issues, with the aim of converging on the truth."
                                  >
                                  > is by its definition a discussion of historical biology. The only
                                  > purpose of modern experimental biology, as it pertains to this
                                  > discussion, should be as a means of testing the proposed theories
                                  for
                                  > the origins of life and/or the species against the mearsurable and
                                  > experimental data available to us in the present.
                                  >
                                  > If I understand Phil and the others' position is that since
                                  evolution
                                  > has had no application on modern biology in the form of
                                  reproducible results, then it has no use.

                                  Paul: None of us expect reproducible results. The point repeatedly
                                  made is that scientific breakthroughs and the progress that result
                                  from them are not the result of theory about past biological
                                  occurences. This is on topic as it concerns an evolutionary issue
                                  the discussion of which is an objective of CED.

                                  Further I understand that the lack of
                                  > results in the field of modern biology is somehow a proof that the
                                  > theory itself does not in fact represent the biological "truth"
                                  being
                                  > sought by this forum. Please correct me if I am terribly mincing
                                  > your words Phil.

                                  Paul: Biological truth is a separate issue. Phil has focused
                                  attention on the relevance of evolutionary interpretation of truth
                                  to scientific progress.
                                  >
                                  > However, any theory regarding historical biology need not
                                  necessarily
                                  > produce any valuable results in modern biology. In fact
                                  > evolutionists would certainly claim that we as human beings have
                                  not
                                  > even existed long enough on this planet to witness the outcome of
                                  > evolutionary theory let alone be able to experiment with it given
                                  the
                                  > timescales necessary for its application.
                                  >
                                  > Nevertheless, there are means available to us to test these
                                  theories
                                  > in the same manner in which there are different means to analyze
                                  > historical geology, a science requiring even longer timescales.
                                  >
                                  > I thought we were discussing the nature of the origins of life and
                                  > the development of life. Phil et al could you clarify your
                                  position
                                  > within the context of the goals of this forum?
                                  >
                                  > JimB

                                  Paul: The origins and development of life have been discussed by
                                  Phil, Pi, Donald, Bilim and me on many occassions. These
                                  discussions take twists and turns. If the turns stray from the
                                  objectives of the group rest assured the moderator would step in.
                                • Donald Nield
                                  ... I understand that Doolittle s work on the blood-clotting cascade is concerned with the evolutionary aspect. That means that there is no sharp separation
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                                    Group:

                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > >I note that Phil has again side-stepped my explicit point about the
                                    > >bias. Instead he has made two further requests of me. Since I am not
                                    > a
                                    > >biologist (as I have previously emphasized) I will make no attempt
                                    > to
                                    > >act as Phil has requested Instead, I comment on the strangeness of
                                    > his
                                    > >first request. He asked that I provide "an example of an important
                                    > >biodiscovery of the past century
                                    > >other than an historical one". That depends on what one takes as
                                    > >important, but surely there are hundreds of reasonably important
                                    > >examples? Or is Phil implying that the only really important
                                    > >biodiscoveries of the past century are historical ones?
                                    > >Don
                                    >
                                    > No. Quite the opposite. The most recent discovery that merited the
                                    > cover of
                                    > Time Mag, was the discovery in Ethiopia of a toe bone, which it was
                                    > decided
                                    > had been part of a bipedal creature. Before that the cover story was
                                    > the
                                    > discovery in Kenya, Kenyanthropus platyops(sp?), for which some fifty
                                    > tiny
                                    > fragments were assembled into the skull cap of a presumptive early
                                    > hominid.
                                    > On the basis of such finds artists will produce a handsome young male
                                    > or
                                    > female for exhibition in museums.
                                    >
                                    > If you had troubled to read the illustration of the hugely incisive,
                                    > and
                                    > hugely valuable, detailed understanding of the human blood-clotting
                                    > system
                                    > which has been developed by modern biologists, you might understand
                                    > the
                                    > difference between historical and modern biology.
                                    >
                                    > Yes, Don, that was a highly biased survey I had carried out. I have
                                    > too
                                    > much self-respect as a scientist to confuse and conflate the modern
                                    > and
                                    > historical sciences for the purpose of the sophistry you seem to
                                    > prefer. Phil
                                    >

                                    I understand that Doolittle's work on the blood-clotting cascade is
                                    concerned with the evolutionary aspect. That means that there is no
                                    sharp separation between modern and historical biology.

                                    Thanks to Phil for the admission of bias.

                                    I think I will leave it at that.
                                    Don
                                  • pk4_paul
                                    ... is ... no ... Paul: Doolittle s efforts were used as apologetics for evolution. Still left hanging is the question as to what contribution this or other
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jul 1, 2004
                                      > I understand that Doolittle's work on the blood-clotting cascade
                                      is
                                      > concerned with the evolutionary aspect. That means that there is
                                      no
                                      > sharp separation between modern and historical biology.
                                      >
                                      > Thanks to Phil for the admission of bias.
                                      >
                                      > I think I will leave it at that.
                                      > Don

                                      Paul: Doolittle's efforts were used as apologetics for evolution.
                                      Still left hanging is the question as to what contribution this or
                                      other like efforts have made to scientific progress. As to bias-
                                      everyone has it. If you think at all you have preconceptions.
                                    • Phil Skell
                                      Freshly returned from a long weekend, to Don s message, below, I will comment briefly, in general. I find it most remarkable that persons with little or no
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jul 6, 2004
                                        Freshly returned from a long weekend, to Don's message, below, I will
                                        comment briefly, in general.

                                        I find it most remarkable that persons with little or no background in
                                        biology traverse so glibly over territory massively involving biology,
                                        contesting the knowledge and views of those with some, or even expert,
                                        knowledge, and resisting all efforts to inform themselves, forgetting that
                                        Darwin was an expert naturalist who spent most of his life thinking and
                                        writing about biology, to which he aspired to make a major contribution.
                                        Sophistry, and statements about seeking Truth have become parts of the
                                        glib conversation. I challenge those so engaged to become acquainted, at
                                        least minimally, with the subject matter they tramp over with such
                                        abandon. Phil

                                        post script: Geology, dealing with ancient occurrences, plays a major role
                                        in finding valuable mineral deposits, including oil, and in helping to
                                        anticipate disastrous earthquakes.

                                        At 10:09 PM 07/01/2004, you wrote:


                                        >Group:
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >I note that Phil has again side-stepped my explicit point about the
                                        > > >bias. Instead he has made two further requests of me. Since I am not
                                        > > a
                                        > > >biologist (as I have previously emphasized) I will make no attempt
                                        > > to
                                        > > >act as Phil has requested Instead, I comment on the strangeness of
                                        > > his
                                        > > >first request. He asked that I provide "an example of an important
                                        > > >biodiscovery of the past century
                                        > > >other than an historical one". That depends on what one takes as
                                        > > >important, but surely there are hundreds of reasonably important
                                        > > >examples? Or is Phil implying that the only really important
                                        > > >biodiscoveries of the past century are historical ones?
                                        > > >Don
                                        > >
                                        > > No. Quite the opposite. The most recent discovery that merited the
                                        > > cover of
                                        > > Time Mag, was the discovery in Ethiopia of a toe bone, which it was
                                        > > decided
                                        > > had been part of a bipedal creature. Before that the cover story was
                                        > > the
                                        > > discovery in Kenya, Kenyanthropus platyops(sp?), for which some fifty
                                        > > tiny
                                        > > fragments were assembled into the skull cap of a presumptive early
                                        > > hominid.
                                        > > On the basis of such finds artists will produce a handsome young male
                                        > > or
                                        > > female for exhibition in museums.
                                        > >
                                        > > If you had troubled to read the illustration of the hugely incisive,
                                        > > and
                                        > > hugely valuable, detailed understanding of the human blood-clotting
                                        > > system
                                        > > which has been developed by modern biologists, you might understand
                                        > > the
                                        > > difference between historical and modern biology.
                                        > >
                                        > > Yes, Don, that was a highly biased survey I had carried out. I have
                                        > > too
                                        > > much self-respect as a scientist to confuse and conflate the modern
                                        > > and
                                        > > historical sciences for the purpose of the sophistry you seem to
                                        > > prefer. Phil
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >I understand that Doolittle's work on the blood-clotting cascade is
                                        >concerned with the evolutionary aspect. That means that there is no
                                        >sharp separation between modern and historical biology.
                                        >
                                        >Thanks to Phil for the admission of bias.
                                        >
                                        >I think I will leave it at that.
                                        >Don


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.