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

Re: On Reason and Rationality

Expand Messages
  • bingy020
    ... not ... obedience as ... were ... inferior. ... reason. ... grand scale. ... Yes, it does. But you keep ignoring the ratios. MOST christians do NOT believe
    Message 1 of 23 , Aug 31, 2008
      --- 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 blind
      obedience as
      > > >the hard core creationists do, does however.
      > >
      > >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 were
      > Nobody ever died from an excess of questioning, doubting or using
      > The blind obedience commanded by God and his spokesmodels and by
      > Hitler (who claimed to speak for God) is what causes horror on a
      grand scale.

      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.

    • Susan Cogan
      ... there isn t any evidence against it. There are creationist cannards and that s about it. ... according to the IDists the simple existence of the royal
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 2, 2008
        > Me: "Dennett...made it plain enough that he (and others like him)
        >would attempt to stuff Darwinist dogma into the heads of children of
        >religious parents."
        > 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
        >against it.

        there isn't any evidence against it. There are creationist cannards
        and that's about it.

        > Susan: "ID creationism is religion."
        > 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).

        according to the IDists the simple existence of the royal flush is
        evidence of design by virtue of the extremely high odds against it.

        > Susan: "(Irreducible complexity) is predicted by evolution."
        > Actually, irreducible complexity is not a prediction of Darwinism;
        >it is an outcome that Darwinism does not expect.

        that isn't true. There are plenty of examples of organism losing
        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 predicts
        >slapdash Rube-Goldberg biological systems, not tightly integrated systems
        >that are irreducibly complex.

        we see examples of both. Yes, evolution tends to be kludgy but
        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 biological
        >systems are assembled step by tiny step.

        that is true

        >Consequently it has no credible
        >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.

        a lot of mutations are duplications. That causes redundancy. Those
        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

        >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).

        it doesn't come up to your standards, but then nothing would. There
        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 of
        >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
        >living organisms.

        why? What difference does it make?

        >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, but
        >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.

        If IDists want to research that, they should go for it. Meanwhile the
        "materialist" scientists will be studying anatomy, embryology, DNA,
        and collecting fossils.

        > Susan: "How DO you distinguish 'biological useful information' from
        >'mere Shannon information'?"
        > Biologically useful information directs the organization of matter
        >into living organisms.

        oh, it's humbug. Molecules naturally combine to form other molecules
        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."
        > In the entire intellectual history of mankind, there is not one
        >example of complex specified information that was "randomly produced."

        a royal flush is complex specified information. So is a fairy ring.
        Both are produced by random natural events and yet they both have
        "meaning" in the human sense.

        > Susan: "ID isn't testable."
        > 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).

        at length they point out how purported examples of ID can be refuted
        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 with
        >magical powers identical to God's."
        > As a theist, I agree. But there's nothing in ID theory to support
        >this conclusion.

        the name. "Intelligent Design" indicates a magical being.

        >ID theory stops with design; it has nothing to say about
        >the identity of the designer.

        for political reasons. Real scientists wouldn't stop anywhere.

        >To get from ID theory to God, one must leave
        >science behind and step into the realms of philosophy and theology.

        no kidding

        > With regard to the PZ Myers quotes you provided, I can only thank
        >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,

        he doesn't think they are persuasive. He doesn't care if they are
        persuasive or not. It's one of his little irritating peccadillos.

        >but what his method of argumentation
        >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

        It's just a word. Sticks and stones.

        >Members of OriginsTalk who are aficionados of adolescent
        >argumentation should by all means visit Pharyngula.

        I visit it daily. In spite of his irritating habit of attacking
        people who shouldn't be attacked, his science posts are wonderful and
        he can be extremely funny.

        >You'll quickly discover
        >that Myers shows himself to be an insufferable ass . . . Science is
        >shamed by his

        science doesn't give a rat's rosy behind. Some scientists cheer him,
        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't
        >kissed him good-bye, but I'm glad that it hasn't.

        I think he has tenure. Also his rants and raves are confined to his
        blog. They are absent in his lectures. He's very clear about that.


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