Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Pie in the Sky; was: A simpler origin of life scenario
- eduard ---
Lets face it, the last thing that ID and Creationism supporters want
is to be put in a position of defending their theories or exposing
their theories to critical analysis.
LA> Noo noo noo, eduard. You must have forgotten that evolutionists
have admitted that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open,
public, scientific debates! Dr. Henry Morris, the well known Creation
scientists, points out that;
[snip the rest of the ___ ... ]
Which shows that when given the opportunity to say something
meaningful, Laurie goes for that old cropped quote. One wonders why
Laurie is even on this list.
> Scientists are passionate about their scientific thoughts andAllen:
>ideas. They unabashedly advocate it all the time whether it be in
>physics with string theory or Dawkins with his selection working
>on the genetic level. What matters is do they refer to evidence and
>reason during this process. Dawkins does this.
> E Bill
No one is saying a scientist can not be passionate about their
views, whether scientific or not.
I again refer you to the first paragraph of the book. I will quoted
it again, you will cut it out again when you reply but it doesn't
change the facts about what it says.
"This is a work of unabashed advocacy. I want to argue in favour of
a particular way of looking at animals and plants, and a particular
way of wondering why they do the things that they do. What I am
advocating is not a new theory, not a hypothesis which can be
verified or falsified, not a model which can be judged by its
predictions. If it were any of those things, I agree with Wilson
(1975, p. 28) that the 'advocacy method' would be inappropriate and
reprehensible. But it is not any of those things. What I am
advocating is a point of view, a way of looking at familiar facts
and ideas, and a way of asking new questions about them. Any reader
who expects a convincing new theory in the conventional sense of the
word is bound to be left, therefore, with a disappointed 'so what?'
feeling. But I am not trying to convince anyone of the truth of any
factual proposition. Rather, I am trying to show the reader a way of
seeing biological facts."
The Extended Phenotype Richard Dawkins.
Pay particular attention to the next to the last sentence. "But I am
not trying to convince anyone of the truth of any factual
I am attempting to obtain an objective standard for textbooks. I
have no problem with allowing irrational philosopher discussing
their views in books introduce into the science classroom. The
principle then be if one irrational philosopher can discuss his
position then all irrational philosopher are admitted the same
priviledge. If one irrational philosopher is rejected because of his
irrational position then all irrational philosophers are rejected.
No it isn't allowed to assert simply because we like the person
religious or anti-religious views he/she is excused from the
principle. Dawkins is clearly offering a philosophy which is not
consistent with the scientific method. Therefore, he is being
irrational, if he is allowed in the classroom, then Dembski and Behe
should be, in fact they are little less irrational. They don't
reject the scientific method whether they support a "naturalistic
method" is to be determine, but they don't reject the scientific
method. Dawkins does precisely this in his lead paragraph. As a
publisher of online material, I would assume you know the first
paragraph is the summary of the book to catch the readers attention.
Likewise I would assume that you would know what the word sequel
meant. But in case you don't.
a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but
continues the narrative of a preceding work
"The Extended Phenotype" is the sequel to "The Selfish Gene". The
Selfish Gene is an anti-religious rant, the sequel is a continuation
of the anti-religious rant.
First, I never cut the chapter out of any response to you. To the contrary
I quoted even more of that first chapter to show how you are wrongly (and
apparently purposefully) misinterpreting Dawkins here. You are assuming that
what he is going to talk about and advocate is some form of atheism or anti
religion position. Instead he is advocating a differnt way of looking at
how natural selection works - at the genetic level instead of at the level
of the organism. A different way of viewing the evidence is not a factual
position. However it throws facts into a new light and can lead to new
areas of research and discovery.
From later in the same chapter:
"I can only say that, as one ordinary biologist studying animal behavior, I
have found that the viewpoint represented by the label the 'extended
phenotype' has made me see animals and their behavior differently, and I
think I understand them the better for it. The extended phenotype may not
constitute a testable hypothesis in itself, but so far changes the way we
see animals and plants that it may cause us to think of testable hypotheses
that we would otherwise have never have dreamed of."
And I would assume that if The Extended Phenotype has an anti religious rant
in it you could quote it. But looking at the Table of Contents, the index,
and the first chapter there is no mention of religion much less an anti
religious rant. All you have to do Allen is quote something from The
Extended Phenotype that puts down religion and you will have proved your
point. But you can't do it Allen. All you have is willfull
misinterpetation and innuendo. That is hardly proof.
Again Allen show me a quote from The Extended Phenotype that disses
religion. This song and dance would not be necessary if you really had the