The faith claims of evolutionsists are not science
- the acrimony that surrounds the creation/evolution debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- people seem to have parked their wits and their ethics at the door of the debating hall.
- to forbid the criticism of evolution theory in schools is NOT science, but a religious demand.
- getting judges to define science is not science, but politics.
- to claim people are insane, wicked, ignorant or stupid if they don't believe in darwinism, is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim one can have absolute knowledge about origins is not science... but a faith claim.
- to claim life can come from non-life (without direction from an intelligent agent) is not science... but a faith claim.
- the claim any explanation of origins other than a naturalistic one is not science, but a faith claim.
- to use the gov. to force one view of origins on people is not science... but politics.
- to claim naturalism can give man absolute truth is not science but a faith claim.
- to tell lies about the many 'proofs' of evolution theory is not science but faith propagation.
- to invent stories about evolution is not science but evangelism.
- to treat creationists with contempt and hatred is not science.
- to imagine all people are the same isn't science, but a faith claim.
- to insist all people hold the same view of origins (ie. e.) isn't science... but a demand of faith.
- to bar professors and teachers from employment is not science but tyranny and persecution.
- the bitterness involved in this debate clearly has nothing to do with science. In fact very little in this debate has anything to do with science. Atheists (and other non-theists, or non-creationists) have confused evolution theory and atheism, and have pretended their atheism is science. Atheism is not science, it's a faith claim.
- the low level on which evolutionists conduct themselves in this debate is an intellectual embarassment.
- I don't deny some creationists haven't acted badly as well. Teaching small children to sing anti-evolution songs would be (in my opinion) an example of this. I consider this akin to liberals having toddlers wear 'Bush is a war criminal' t-shirts. It's one thing to teach children songs of praise to god - and I think this not only proper, but wonderful - but it is another thing entirely to teach them songs that are purely negative in nature. You won't find that taught in the book of Genesis Ken; or anywhere else in the bible for that matter.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Biotic message: a review of the book by Walter Remine, by Donald Batten
Quotes and comments;
1. "ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. This confuses the point entirely."
- only someone who totally fails to understand the situation, or someone who is being deliberately deceptive, would imagine this card trick analogy addresses the problem. We're not looking for an 'improbable' result, we're looking for a highly specific result; not just any improbablitity. The point is ths; it is highly unlikely (improbable) we will find a naturalistic explanation. We're not looking for the improbable. We're looking for life; not for improbabilities. We're looking for the concrete, not the abstract. We're looking for the meaningful, not the meaningless.
- if David Hume were here he'd no doubt call this a faulty analogy. Cards are human artifacts; that being the case it would appear to be misleading for a natualist to use them for an analogy to biology.
- cards aren't codes; their arrangements are meaningless; they don't carry information. (Apparently this is all too complicated for richard dawkins to understand.)
- we might (for the sake of humor) say that finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as likely as producing one of Shakespeare's plays by shuffling a deck of cards :=)
Quotes and comments;
1. "ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time. This confuses the point entirely."
- only someone who totally fails to understand the situation, or someone who is being deliberately deceptive, would imagine this card trick analogy addresses the problem. We're not looking for an 'improbable' result, we're looking for a highly specific result; not just any improbablitity. The point is ths; it is highly unlikely (improbable) we will find a naturalistic explanation. We're not looking for the improbable. We're looking for life; not for improbabilities. We're looking for the concrete, not the abstract. We're looking for the meaningful, not the meaningless.
- if David Hume were here he'd no doubt call this a faulty analogy. Cards are human artifacts; that being the case it would appear to be misleading for a natualist to use them for an analogy to biology.
- cards aren't codes; their arrangements are meaningless; they don't carry information. (Apparently this is all too complicated for richard dawkins to understand.)
- we might (for the sake of humor) say that finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as likely as producing one of Shakespeare's plays by shuffling a deck of cards :=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)