Re: On Reason and Rationality
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Susan Cogan <sbcogan@...> wrote:
> At 11:00 PM 8/16/2008, you wrote:
> >On 8/12/2008, Susan Cogan wrote:
> > >there you go. Atheism (i.e. evolution) has "potentially horrific
> > >ends." You can't weasel out of it with "I'm sure there's a coupla
> > >good atheists out there." A rational scientific worldview will
> > >"potentially lead to horrific ends." Insisting on blindobedience as
> > >the hard core creationists do, does however.were
> >The truth is that "a rational scientific worldview" _has_
> >led to horrific ends. Eugenics, Hitler's systematic
> >"racial hygiene and "final solution" programs, and the
> >utilitarians' Darwinist infanticide prescription, are
> >just a sampling of the horrific ends a "rational
> >scientific worldview" has led to.
> Christians and creationists loved eugenics as much as Hitler. They
> didn't understand the logical conclusion of it until Hitler's
> excesses. Also in Hitler's time most Christians--most especially
> Biblical literalists--were as racist as all get out. It was
> Biblically literal Christians were the ones that had to be fought
> against in the 50s and 60s to get civil rights for blacks. THEY
> the ones that claimed that the Bible told them blacks wereinferior.
> Nobody ever died from an excess of questioning, doubting or usingreason.
> The blind obedience commanded by God and his spokesmodels and by
> Hitler (who claimed to speak for God) is what causes horror on a
>Yes, it does. But you keep ignoring the ratios. MOST christians do
NOT believe as such. MOST Germans did not agree with the Nazis (they
were in fear for their lives though if they admitted it). How many
neo-nazis and racist white supremacists are there in existence today?
1% of the US's population? IF that much? Less percentage than that
compared to the world population.
To allow people to be a 'law unto themselves' is idiotic at BEST.
That's what our tax dollars pay law makers and police and judges for.
Do you really think people in general will be so forgiving and
tolerant and think like you do when they think to themselves (BTW,
nice application of the Golden Rule without actually admitting it) "I
don't want it done to me so I won't do it to others?" no. That's the
exception, not the rule. Most people's ideology is "I am going to do
it to you before you do it to ME." It is a self preservation
You are both on extreme ends of your thoughts.
BTW, Clare, eugenics and sterilization as Hitler's final solution was
first mentioned and even tried in the United States. It was LAW in
some states. And this is an alleged christian country.
But just so you know I beleive in God the creator.
>there isn't any evidence against it. There are creationist cannards
> Me: "Dennett...made it plain enough that he (and others like him)
>would attempt to stuff Darwinist dogma into the heads of children of
> Susan: "yes, of course. Aren't you planning to do that to other
>people's children? Isn't that what 'teach the controversy' is all about?"
> No. "Teach the controversy" means that students would not only be
>taught the evidence for Darwinism, they would also be taught the evidence
and that's about it.
> Susan: "ID creationism is religion."according to the IDists the simple existence of the royal flush is
> Yawn.... No matter how many times you say this, it remains utterly
> Me: "A lesson plan in ID might include,,,the meaning and
>significance of specified complexity (with examples)."
> Susan: "this would be wonderful. Then we can show them specified
>complexity--like a royal flush in poker--that was randomly generated."
> No one would be greatly surprised if a random shuffling of cards
>produced a royal flush (unless, of course, that outcome was specified
>immediately before the cards were shuffled). But if a card shark dealt
>himself, say, three consecutive royal flushes, a design inference would be
>warranted: for that outcome to have occurred, the card shark was, in all
>probability, cheating (see message #16,087).
evidence of design by virtue of the extremely high odds against it.
> Susan: "(Irreducible complexity) is predicted by evolution."that isn't true. There are plenty of examples of organism losing
> Actually, irreducible complexity is not a prediction of Darwinism;
>it is an outcome that Darwinism does not expect.
parts do to variation and natural selection--in other words becoming
more simple. You end up with things needed at one time and not needed
later. Cave fish eyes are a crude example.
>Darwinism predictswe see examples of both. Yes, evolution tends to be kludgy but
>slapdash Rube-Goldberg biological systems, not tightly integrated systems
>that are irreducibly complex.
natural selection is perfectly capable of refining and refining
something down to simplicity. Irreducible complexity is badly named
since the referents are irreducibly simple.
>Darwinism also posits that complex biologicalthat is true
>systems are assembled step by tiny step.
>Consequently it has no crediblea lot of mutations are duplications. That causes redundancy. Those
>explanation for how any irreducibly complex biological system (which
>requires that all of its components be in place in order to perform its
>function) might have been assembled in a piecemeal, Darwinian manner.
redundant parts are free to evolve off in different directions. Also
a body part that has one function can be shaped by evolution to
perform another, more pressingly needed function. Exaptation. You've
heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation
>Theit doesn't come up to your standards, but then nothing would. There
>stories Darwinists tell to try to overcome the problem irreducible
>complexity presents to their theory are imaginative, but those stories fail
>to provide any detailed, testable Darwinian pathways to irreducibly complex
>systems (see message #14,493).
are observations of organisms with all the "speculated" transitions.
"Another common objection to Behe's claim that irreducibly complex
biochemical systems lie beyond the remit of the Darwinian mechanism is the
co-optation objection. According to this objection, proteins previously
targeted for various cellular systems sometimes break free and are co-opted
into novel systems. It is as though pieces from a car, bicycle, motorboat,
and train can be suitably recombined to form an airplane. This objection is
also sometimes called a patchwork or bricolage objection. Thus any such
airplane would be a patchwork or bricolage of preexisting materials
originally targeted for different uses. "
and here we get the illogical comparison of non-biological examples
to refute biological ones. And I know for a fact you can take the
pieces of car, bicycle, etc. and make something that can fly.
> Susan: "'information theory' doesn't have a place in the history ofwhy? What difference does it make?
>life on earth."
> Nonsense. To explain life's evolution, biologists must explain the
>origin of the biological information that causes matter to be shaped into
>Darwinism doesn't (and can't) provide that explanation.it isn't really interested as far as I know.
>Darwinism is wholly committed to matter and material causes, butIf IDists want to research that, they should go for it. Meanwhile the
>information is not matter. Information theory is likely crucial to
>understanding how complex biological systems might have originated. To say
>that it has no place in the search for explanations of life's complexities
>is to prejudge what those explanations will be. That kind of thinking is
>precisely what science should avoid.
"materialist" scientists will be studying anatomy, embryology, DNA,
and collecting fossils.
> Susan: "How DO you distinguish 'biological useful information' fromoh, it's humbug. Molecules naturally combine to form other molecules
>'mere Shannon information'?"
> Biologically useful information directs the organization of matter
>into living organisms.
and compounds. Hydrogen doesn't need special magic to make it combine
with oxygen to make water. Even the Miller Urey experiment (and all
the hundreds of others since then) have shown that ordinary molecules
combine to form organic compounds. "Information" in this context is
post facto human evaluation, not an actual physical something.
> Susan: "(complex specified information) can be randomly produced."a royal flush is complex specified information. So is a fairy ring.
> In the entire intellectual history of mankind, there is not one
>example of complex specified information that was "randomly produced."
Both are produced by random natural events and yet they both have
"meaning" in the human sense.
> Susan: "ID isn't testable."at length they point out how purported examples of ID can be refuted
> Actually, it is. In their writings, design theorists explain at
>length how ID can be (and is) tested, but since you won't read their works,
>it's no wonder that you keep peddling this falsehood (along with all the
>other falsehoods you peddle about ID).
but not ID itself. "A" isn't actually designed? It evolved? Well, "B"
was designed. "B" isn't actually designed? It evolved? Well, "C" was
designed. Ad nauseum to the end of time. ID itself can't be falsified.
But there's a significant problem with my argumentation above.
Creationists NEVER admit they are wrong. They will go on saying "A"
was designed decades after it was clearly shown to have evolved.
> Susan: "The designer is either God or a supernatural being withthe name. "Intelligent Design" indicates a magical being.
>magical powers identical to God's."
> As a theist, I agree. But there's nothing in ID theory to support
>ID theory stops with design; it has nothing to say aboutfor political reasons. Real scientists wouldn't stop anywhere.
>the identity of the designer.
>To get from ID theory to God, one must leaveno kidding
>science behind and step into the realms of philosophy and theology.
> With regard to the PZ Myers quotes you provided, I can only thankhe doesn't think they are persuasive. He doesn't care if they are
>you. Myers consistently demonstrates why no one outside of his amen chorus
>takes him seriously. He apparently thinks that vulgarity, sarcasm, sneers,
>jeers, and ridicule are persuasive,
persuasive or not. It's one of his little irritating peccadillos.
>but what his method of argumentationIt's just a word. Sticks and stones.
>actually does is ensure that he'll persuade no skeptics of Darwinism that
>he's right and they're wrong. His blog (Pharyngula) is an incestuous
>affair, where Darwinian true believers stroke one another's egos (it's also
>a place where the "f" word is prominently featured in a variety of ways,
>perhaps most prominently by referring to skeptics of Darwinism as
>Members of OriginsTalk who are aficionados of adolescentI visit it daily. In spite of his irritating habit of attacking
>argumentation should by all means visit Pharyngula.
people who shouldn't be attacked, his science posts are wonderful and
he can be extremely funny.
>You'll quickly discoverscience doesn't give a rat's rosy behind. Some scientists cheer him,
>that Myers shows himself to be an insufferable ass . . . Science is
>shamed by his
others are annoyed by him. There's a reason he was banned from
Panda's Thumb for a while.
>I'm surprised that the University of Minnesota (Morris) hasn'tI think he has tenure. Also his rants and raves are confined to his
>kissed him good-bye, but I'm glad that it hasn't.
blog. They are absent in his lectures. He's very clear about that.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]