Richard Dawkins! Grrr… Arg…
Posted on Mon, 16th January 2006 at 20:35 under Humour, PoliticsYes, the
Mr. Darkens, please stop darkening our world with your semi-scientific, neo-Fascist humans are genetically programmed to obey authority
nonsense. If you don’t, I’ll construct and publish scientific falsifications of any and all climate change
, I’ll make them think of all the hot air you generate.
If you are truly a scientist, why behave like a preacher? Crawl back under the rocks with the other bugs. That’s where all the evidence is to be found, after all.
Libertus said: January 16th, 2006 at 20:37
Yes, this is unashamedly ad hominem. I don’t like Richard Dawkins.
ReplyPaul said: January 16th, 2006 at 21:07
What’s the matter with him? He’s only trying to broaden people’s horizons. Jesus did the same and you liked him.
ReplyLibertus said: January 16th, 2006 at 21:31
Don’t you think people will get confused if we start talking amongst ourselves in public?
ReplyPaul said: January 16th, 2006 at 21:32
Don’t worry. Once I can edit this comment, I’ll be out of here.
ReplyLibertus said: January 16th, 2006 at 21:32
Well get on with it then. Some people have blogs to run, you know.
ReplyLibertus said: January 18th, 2006 at 02:41
Paul,
You do realise I’m on a deadline here? I’m promoting my blog right now. People are coming and I need them to be able to edit their own comments. You said it would take practically no time at all to fix WordPress so that people would be able to edit their own comments. That was three days ago and still no editable comments. In fact, nothing except a sarky comment about Jesus.
When are you going to finish what I asked you to start three days ago?
ReplyLibertus said: January 18th, 2006 at 02:50
And while we’re on the subject of finishing things, where is Outreach? Why haven’t yoiu finished Zeitgeist? Where is the semantic tag searching and indexing? Let’s not even mention the vegetable thing.
Where are all these amazing devices you promised me? I’ll tell you where - all half-written or not-even-started-yet and lowering the tone of my highly regarded blog. I won’t stand for it much longer, mate. You better get all your precious inventions working and soon or I’m pulling the plug.
Don’t mess me about. Can you do all these things or can’t you?
ReplyPaul said: January 18th, 2006 at 22:40
Libertus,
I’m nearly done with the comment editing but I’ve hit a snag. In order to style comments according to user level, I need to add a table join each time comments are queried. That will have a negative impact on the performance of the blog overall. I don’t think it’ll be significant, but you need to tell me if this is ok or not.
ReplyLibertus said: January 18th, 2006 at 22:49
About time! Yes, whatever you want, just so long as it is installed by this weekend.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 19th, 2006 at 22:37
“I’ll construct and publish scientific falsifications of any and all evolutionary theories on which you have depended.”
If you do that then you are a greater man then every evoultionary biologest since Darwin. Evolution happens - it has been demonstrated on a small scale in various tests - and the idea of scaling it up simply requires more time. May I ask exactly how you plan to disprove a theory wich is more widely accepted than Big Bang theory?
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 19th, 2006 at 22:42
Just to add - look up the The Apple Maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella).
ReplyLibertus said: January 19th, 2006 at 23:17
Ann,
Welcome back! I’ve missed you!
I’m not an evolutionary biologist. How could I be one of those if I know how to falisfy the theory of evolution? I don’t need to be. All I need to do is read. The Seventh Day Adventists have been on to this for years. Have you ever wondered why they’re so quiet?
As to Big Bang and Evolution, aren’t they related in some way?
Could you help me with a bit more information as to why the apple maggot is worthy of my attention. I don’t need much convincing, just a little.
How have you been? Making good mischief all over the web, I hope.
ReplyLibertus said: January 19th, 2006 at 23:18
Also, observe what Google is trying to sell. It is relevant, kinda.
ReplyLibertus said: January 19th, 2006 at 23:38
PAUL! HELP!
Outreach tags aren’t supported in comments! Can you fix it?
ReplyPaul said: January 20th, 2006 at 03:15
Your wish is my command, O Master
ReplyLibertus said: January 20th, 2006 at 03:20
Thanks, Paul.
ReplyVictor Wood said: January 20th, 2006 at 09:38
Despite its claims to the contrary, I find the scientific community among the among the most close-minded segments of humanity. The “scientific establishment” do not allow free thought and will close ranks at the slightest whisper of “heresy” from accepted norms.
The issue with evolution is that one is trying to prove something scientifically that is in fact a matter of faith. By faith, I don’t mean faith in a particular view God but faith in the mechanism by which something came into existance. All things that are were either designed by applying intelligent energy, or they came about by natural and random processes not requiring intelligence, only randomly directed energy over great periods of time.
Now my problem with evolutionists today is that that they are not scientifically objective. Forget the apple maggot. Let’s get to the heart of the issue here. Something very very basic that sets the framework for all constructs to follow.
Before the evolutionist can begin to convince me of his “theory” (and scietifically speaking, evolution is not even a hypothesis), he must demonstrate to me that there is no God. If the scientist can demonstrate there is no God, then a case can be made for at least considering the possibility of evolutionary processes. If the scientist cannot demostrate that there is no God, then the possibility that things other than evolution could account for our world must be considered and weighed against the evidence we have. The concept of God should not be considered “unscientific”. Indeed, if God exists, then we are profoundly idiots for trying to explain our world without Him, as the evolutionist proposes to do.
To say that it is unscientific to place some specific aspect of our world under the microscope of scientific study and consider that it might have been purposely designed, is to me bigotry of the highest order when you must confess that there is at least a possibility that a God exists. If one cannot confess the possible existence of God, then one is bound to offer up evidence that disproves God’s exisitence. Otherwise, if we are to be objectively scientific, we must not eclude that possbility, and therefore, accept all arguments for or against either view within a scholarly, scientific debate over the evidences.
I see no such objectivity from the evolutionist camp. They are dishonest and narrow-minded to an alarming degree, not even allowing those of another view to be heard in their literature.
So tell me - God or no God? We have to start there; otherwise, we can’t hope to set a stable framework for studey and discussion. If you have proof that God does not exist, then we can discuss evolution as the only realistic mechanism as you propose. But if you can’t prove that God does not exist, then you must be prepared to open your mind to studies based upon EITHER assumption and judge them on the merit of the truth they bring to the table. God is NOT unscientific. Indeed, if there were a God, it would be hugely unscientific and downright dishonest to ignore His impact upon our world.
So until you can furnish that evidence to me, please fuck off with your egotistical, anthro-centric absolutes. You don’t know truth. You violate scientific method. You only know how to fall into the accepted queue.
ReplyLibertus said: January 20th, 2006 at 13:13
Hi Victor!
You may have, inadvertently, illustrated my whole problem with allowing other people free speech - they can use it to show up the host. And wow, I’m impressed.
While I’m reading, I’ll jot notes and URLs I think of. I’ve been trying to have this discussion for AGES
I tried on the threadSheffield Forum . No takers.
Hey Victor, what did you think ofthe Ozric CD ? Also, would you be willing to help me test the comment editing facility I’m about to introduce to the blog?
ReplyLibertus said: January 20th, 2006 at 18:32
May I just point out that I have little to no control over what Google tries to sell here. I have at no point implied that “Richard Dawkins was wrong” as the Google ad reads. Those are someone else’s words, not mine. I do not recall having read any of Mr. Dawkins’ books.
Just because I can scientifically falisfy something does not make it wrong. Sometimes, falsification makes an idea stronger.
ReplyLibertus said: January 21st, 2006 at 01:07
I can’t help it. I’ve got to know what is being sold behind the door marked “Richard Dawkins was wrong. The Selfish Gene is correct - except the last three pages”. I’m clicking…
Oh! I’m not sure if I’m allowed to tell anyone what I’ve just seen. Whatever you do - don’t click! It’s a blog! Selling a book on the back of a specious critique of Dawkin’s work. That, folks, is what I call a perfectly targeted ad. I clicked. It was aimed at me.
I love Google. Google thinks I’m a fuckwit. Who am I to argue? Maybe I am wrong about Prof. Dawkins. I should read his work. sounds interesting. I think I may have read some of it before. The quotes on the blag are vaguely familiar. I think I read them in an anthology of works on machine consciousness while I was travelling in Australia. by Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel K. Dennet.
The trail leads on toConscious Robots . Yes, Richard Dawkins was wrong. He didn’t go far enough, that’s why. He’s charging too much for his books. These guys are offering one for $7.53 download or $13.98 for print. I bet Richard charges a lot more. He’s a rip-off!
So, I’m willing to be sold to but I’m not in a financial position to afford both. It’s a choice between or . I shall buy and read one in print. Who wants to pimp first? Richard or the other guy?
ReplyVictor Wood said: January 21st, 2006 at 10:12
I’ll be honest with you Paul. I no longer put much mental stock into this debate, because in the end we are all, scientists and non-scientists alike, faced with the same result - lots of evidence but no smoking gun. The evidence abounds as we learn more and more about our physical environment, from the microcosmic to the macrocosmic, under the sea, in the air, underground. But no one can stand up and say this is it - proof positive - though parties on both sides of the divide like Michael Behe and Richard Dawkins will promote their beliefs evangelically.
But one thing I have to say. The case for design seems so clearly evident, even the most diehard evolutionists like Dawkins must inject a huge portion of its verbage into their solutions or their solutions just won’t make sense. Anytime you see on TV or in literature a presentation on the natural world, you usualy get interspersed with it a huge dose of evolutionist propaganda and dogma as well. And if you listen to this stuff, you will begin to see the logical quirks in their arguments. But the one I am most interested in is based around wording similar to the following:
“Millions of years ago this widget decided that it would provide great advantage to its ability to survive from predators and to find food if it developed wings - so it did”
OR
“We are programmed….”
OR
“Our genes are programmed……”
What people have to understand it that we, or any other species, don’t just “decide” to evolve into another species, or to grow wings, or develop an eye, or two eyes, or eight eyes. We don’t just decide to turn our flippers into legs. We don’t just decide to to create a male and a female who can together make a new male or female. We don’t just decide to develop warm blood and tissue, and muscle, and interdependent organs with incredibly interdependent parts working together for one purpose and a marvellously complex brain to run it all, and expect for all those bits to work together. Have you ever read the steps that blood goes through to clot? Or how complex the eye is? I’m sorry. These things don’t just happen. They are products of design, and even the evolutionist must intersperse concepts and words like “self-design” and “selfish” into their literature, because they have no other words or explanation for it. They can neither tell you exactly who or what was responsible for the results, nor can they tell you exactly how it was done, nor can they tell you when it was done, nor can they tell you why it was done. But they are quite willing present their views as unarguable truths. The truth is they can only speculate. That’s really all any of us can do in the end - speculate.
But the bottom line to me has to be this - things were either created/designed by Intelligence, or they developed on their own through exisitng natural processes (BTW,where did these natural processes come from?). If you believe that there is a God, then you will likely take the purposefully designed view (though not necessarily). If you do not, then you will likely take the evolutionary view (though not necessarily, if you can’t get over the idea that everything you observe seems to possess characterisitcs of design). But never forget this - the evolutionary view was developed to explain this world without resorting to the guiding hand of a “God” - it is at its heart a godless proposition. But it was most certainly NOT developed as a result of compelling and irrefutable evidence.
(And btw Paul, the idea that, as you say, “sometimes falsefication makes an idea stronger”, is pretty close to being aptly described a bollocks, if you don’t mind me taking from your own words. A theory that contains no statements that would disprove it, cannot be falsefied. Therefore such a theory is not really a theory at all since it is true even when parts of it are proven false. For example, you might make the statement, It will either rain tomorrow or it will not. This is a true statement wheter either of the component statements are tru of not. It cannot be falsefied. Another variant is circular reasoning. For example, when a geologist is asked how they know the age of a set of rocks in a particular location, they are told that they know the age of the rocks by the fossils that it contains. And when a paleontologist is asked how he knows the age of a fossil, he replies that he knows the age of a fossil by the rocks that contain it.)
The Ozric CD is very enjoyable. A little strange, but enjoyable. Thanks for recommending it.
ReplyLibertus said: January 21st, 2006 at 12:21
Victor,
You caught me talking bollocks. I knew you were going to be trouble. We seem alike.
OK, I’ll be straight. If it ain’t falsifiable, it ain’t science - it’s something else. That isn’t a novel idea - it’s been around for millennia. You and I both seem to be of the opinion that, so far in our experience, we have not been exposed to any evolutionary theory that tickled our keen interests in science. Correct?
I am no longer bothered by it but, unlike you, I haven’t yet exhausted my desire to explore this odd thing I’ve discovered - science that doesn’t interest me. It interests me.
The study of evolution is, in large part, the examination and reinterpretation of history. History is immutable, therefore unfalsifyable. You can only be wrong about what happened, how and why, not if.
It wasn’t until I had readKant’s Critique of Pure Reason for the third or fourth time that I realised why these didn’t interest me. They do not examine the real world. They’re bollocks. Practitioners of these new sciences can say just about anything they want without fear of contradiction, except from other people talking bollocks on the same subject. Where’s the science? Where are the carefully designed and globally replicated experiments?
Where are the toys? Where are the gadgets to play with? That’s what real science is truly about guys. Boys toys! Particle accelerators, electron microscopes, orbiting telescopes, spectrometers, micrometers, nanometers. Kit. Tools. Meaurement. Fun.
As you point out Victor, the primary tools of these new scientists seems to be patter and publicity. So, again, you help me with my vocabulary. I want to get these phrases nailed so they don’t catch me out any more.
I have a keen interest in “experimental science”, which I understand to mean the systematic examination of the real to discover the possible. It needs tools. I love tools.
I have less interest in “probable science”. which I understand to mean speculative philosophy, the examination of the unknown to discover the probable. It needs bollocks. I like bollocks.
I have no interest in “popular science”. It needs ignorance.
I hate “risk science”. It needs malice.
Now, which three-letter word beginning with “GEE!!” did I not mention once? Why’s that? Nothing, whatsoever, to do with science.
ReplyLibertus said: January 21st, 2006 at 12:27
Genetics is an experimental science. Love it.
Reply“Intelligent Design” I put in the “probable science” category. I like the idea. I use it.
Evolutionary origin theories I put in the “popular science” category. No interest.
God is, of course, a risk science.
God said: January 21st, 2006 at 19:15
I have given mankind everything it needs to decide if I exist or not, but still you would rather have faith in science, thinking in your odd human way that it is somehow better, well I got news for you. It’s the same thing. All the evolutionists are managing to prove is that an intelligent force is behind everything. Evolution cannot ultimately be explained any other way.
You can’t begin to understand how complex all this stuff was to develop. The testing and development phase alone lasted 50 billion earth years, then there was the 10 billion years to get to phase 1 implementation of the solar system, another billion years to figure out the exact placement of the planets to allow my life models to survive and develop in a sustainable way without my direct intervention.
Well I’m working on Phase 5 now and when it’s finished, I’m going to wipe out the current system and replace rather than just add the new organisms and let it develop as I have done previously.
ReplyLibertus said: January 25th, 2006 at 17:39
Yet another score by Google, this time off the homepage. leads to another book for sale called - rather too obvious an oxymoron to be intended as anything but irony. This one is£7.99 , apparently the author has a PhD in molecular biophysics and isn’t being marketed in the same cheezy, sleazy fashion as the last one.
Decisions, decisions.
ReplyLiberta said: January 26th, 2006 at 10:09
If there is to be any evidence that an intelligence extra-this-world exists, then it is to be found in the study of life at present and the remains of life in the past. Life in the present presents many conundrums of , the cleaner wrasse being my favourite. Life in the past provides us glimpses of what once existed thus prompting the question of .
What life does not and cannot tell us, is whether there is a . For in the common parlance of the word is not only intelligent and able and able to create self-replicating structures [ a pretty remarkable set of skills already ], but also able to communicate with a tiny subset of his creations and then judge them on how they behave and give them eternal bliss or damnation as a result.
Sorry Victor, evolutionary or any scientists do not have to disprove God, the many worlds religions already provide evidence against God. God speaks to his pet animals but cant get his message straight. If God existed he would have dictated to Mohammed in modern English and Big 5 Chinese as well as Arabic. He has finally got someone listening, someone who is willing to spread the message, and yet he sticks to the local language that has limited reach. Not very bright huh? God is a localised excuse for setting social rules that overreached their claim as soon as the tribe expanded and a few centuries development went by. God is anthropology.
Scientists do not need to disprove God. Religions need to prove God by letting go the human written books and rules and starting to talk to their God directly in a way they can demonstrate to the rest of the world there is something to communicate with. Religions need to demonstrate that God can communicate with humans but is somehow unable to communicate and grant the same blessings to all the other creatures and plants he created or allowed to be created by virtue of the gene, or perhaps in their direct discussions they will find out that indeed he can and does, which would make them rather humble dont you think?
Lets leave the word out of this, talk instead of design. We don’t need for design requires intelligence. But intelligence does not require God.
ReplyLibertus said: January 26th, 2006 at 12:42
Ah! TheCleaner Wrasse ! Finding that was like finding the Babelfish . The delight is the question of explaining the creature’s behaviour in simple terms that are not obviously apparent. And the cephalopods ! The mimic octopus , for instance. Amazing.
I disagree that life cannot tell us whether there is a , but would caution that such a huge leap of faith () should not be taken lightly, nor should the corrollary ().
Scientists do not need to disprove God? What does that make Professor Dawkins? Misguided? Inefficient? A waste of taxpayer’s research money?
Whilst I agree that the old religions desperately need to update theircodicies , I can well understand, as you do, the resistance to messing with something that has worked well for a long time, especially generations. Who would you trust to write the new Bible? How could you be sure, without divine intervention, that the correct forms had been preserved? Which is your point entirely - the religions need communication with a real God. Religions need to prove the existence of God in order to evolve, and their resistance to evolution is totally at variance with the observed laws of living things as well as their own belief structures.
If God truly existed in the way the religions claim, their rulebooks would not be thousands of years old. OnlyIslam seems to be honest, up-front, about its fixity.
And yes, I’d like to keep God out of a discussion about an eminent scientist like Richard Dawkins, but how can it be avoided if he keeps bringing up the subject?
It’s Victor’s issue - all the evidence in the world but nothing conclusive enough to convince people. Must drive Prof. Dawkins bonkers!
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 26th, 2006 at 19:39
Could you help me with a bit more information as to why the apple maggot is worthy of my attention. I don’t need much convincing, just a little.
Basicly the species is one of the few to be observed to have evolved into an entiarly new one within human experience.
How have you been? Making good mischief all over the web, I hope.
Oh yes (www.freewebs.com/lkjhgfdsafruit)
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 26th, 2006 at 20:02
Victor,
I think your arguments are based on idoits pretending to be scentists. It is toataly unscentific to use words like ‘design’, ‘chose’ or ‘wanted’ with regard to evolution. Evolution is simply a statistical phonomonon which boils down to “animals who are better than average at producing offspring are more likely to have a larger portion of the geen pool than the average”
ReplyLibertus said: January 26th, 2006 at 20:51
Ann,
Thanks for the background on the maggot. I’ll keep it in mind so that if it pops up while I’m researching, I’ll look into it.
You describe natural selection well.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 26th, 2006 at 21:54
God,
Evolution cannot ultimately be explained any other way.
It can be explained as a purly statisical phonomonon with no intelegence behind it.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 26th, 2006 at 21:57
“libertus
is delighted by the presence of Ann Onymous”
I like that.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 26th, 2006 at 22:32
“The Cleaner Wrasse!”
Perfect example of the social effects of capitalism.
ReplyLibertus said: January 26th, 2006 at 22:44
Ann,
On God, evolution and statistics. There’s a quote attributed to Einstein about God not being a dice player.This page has more . I’m not sure what he meant but I think it is relevant, somehow.
On your welcome. Well, it’s true! You should see how the site welcomes me.
On the Cleaner Wrasse. ROFL. I think you nailed that one. It has been permitted to evolve only so far as is of use to its customers. Time for a union!
ReplyAli said: January 27th, 2006 at 00:31
Ann,
If you work from the position that no one created all the basic structures with the potential to evolve based on environmental pressures and that they just appeared out the the great nothingness of space (where did that come from?) then you get Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (provided you ignore the platypus) The fact that life in all it’s various and wonderful forms has evolved, in some cases despite environmental pressures, natural disasters and so on could be taken as a sign that someone or something is lending a hand from time to time to keep things moving along (for what purpose?). If one can accept this as a possibility then the next logical question is who or what on earth has the intelligence and power to steer the course of the evolutionary cycle? As far as I am aware there isn’t anyone like that, so it therefore has to be someone or something outside our natural world.
Is it God?
Why is it so difficult to accept that a force beyond our understanding is behind all this?
I think it was Arthur Conan Doyle who wrote as Sherlock Holmes “Once you have elimitated all other possibilities, what is left no matter how improbable, is the answer”
I don’t think that is the exact quote but it’s close. It remains I guess for us to eliminate all other possible solutions. Nothing is impossible except stickingyour bum out the window, running outside and throwing stones at it.
ReplyAli said: January 27th, 2006 at 00:39
This is the right quote
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I like this one too
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
ReplyLiberta said: January 27th, 2006 at 09:07
Ali,
A hand that pushes things along has great power, intelligence, or just reason to be. God has oodles of power, but also recognises individual human beings, talks to some of them, demands worship from all of them, gives them all sorts of rules for living their lives that contradicts the ones he gave the other tribe over there, and condemns them to eternal life with him or without him.
They are not the same thing. Please can we come up with a different word?
ReplyAli said: January 27th, 2006 at 15:00
You are talking of the God of religion, not the true God of the universe. All religions are just an excuse for the few to lord it over the many.
It may be that from time to time, this power tries to communicate with a few humans. It could be idle curiosity or some greater purpose, however that does not mean that this power does not also communicate with all living things at one time or another in the same way, we just don’t know about it.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 27th, 2006 at 19:17
Ali,
(where did that come from?)
Where did God?
(provided you ignore the platypus)
What exactly is wrong with a species which, due to its special circumstances, has evolved down a slightly different line from those species to which it is closely related?
ReplyAli said: January 27th, 2006 at 21:52
Ann,
There is nothing wrong with the platypus, or any other creature for that matter. I mearly used the platypus as an example where Darwin’s Theory kind of falls apart, i.e. is a mammal that lays eggs.
As to where God came from, that is one of the great mysteries. You seem to want absolute answers, but there are none to be had. You can either accept this or continue to go round and round with the same old arguments of science vs. religion and eventually go mad. One day science may crest the mountain, but it will find that God has been sitting there all along just waiting for science to catch up.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 27th, 2006 at 22:10
Ali,
“I merely used the platypus as an example where Darwin’s Theory kind of falls apart,”
Evolution says nothing about animals conforming to norms. There is no go reason why an animal would not develop down a totally differnt line to others.
“As to where God came from, that is one of the great mysteries. ”
I was mearly saying that you can hardly try and claim that an argument based on a universe with no known being based on a counter argument which simply replaces ‘universe’ with ‘God’.
ReplyLibertus said: January 28th, 2006 at 01:15
I’t not justplatypi ! In Oz, there are rats the size of small dogs , mice the size of people , people who wear snakes and well, all kinds of odd stuff. And that’s just above the surface.
The theory of evolution would be very different ifDarwin had surveyed Australia and New Zealand instead of the Galapagos Islands . It would never have existed. Primarily because he would not have lived long enough to finish it.
As it is, he developed the theory (on the back of an existing one) at age 29 (from Wikipedia , born 1809, theory first noted 1838) after gathering and analysing data from a five-year voyage. Sketches and samples - some still exist.
And what did Darwin achieve? One thing only. Destruction. He destroyed all traces of God from the science of natural history, a process he began with the publication of the results of his research in 1859.
So there you have it. History teaches us that if you think a natural science is misguided, all it takes to put it right is 30 years of hard work in your prime and at least 150 years of patience with constant advocacy.
It is fortunate, then, that Einstein was working to correct a theoretical science, otherwise most of us would still hold to the silly notion that God was personally cranking the mechanical drive-wheel of the cosmos. Newton - what a clod! E=mc2, dude!
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 28th, 2006 at 19:15
Libertus,
“Einstein was working to correct a theoretical science”
How exactly do you corect a thoery - any logicaly vaild theory is equil in worth and seperated only by bodies of evidence. Presenting evidence for one does not make another wrong.
ReplyLibertus said: January 28th, 2006 at 20:03
Ann,
Evidence doesn’t mean squat if you’re not describing or interpreting it correctly. Sad but true.
A theory is corrected in the same way a flickering television set is repaired - with an almighty BANG in precisely the right place. You don’t seem to know this, but around a century ago, the science of Physics almost collapsed entirely, right at the brink of the greatest discovery it ever made.
The bulk, if not all, of Einstein’s work was done in the realm of mathematics. The science of Physics, at the time, was still dominated by Newton’s mechanical/geometric model of the universe, which had worked well for centuries to explain and predict astronomical phenomena. As physicists began to explore the universe at a small scale, the observed phenomena were progressively incompatible with the Newtonian physical world-view, but no alternative satisfactory theory existed to take its place. Physics needed to completely change direction but couldn’t, so it struggled on for years trying to both learn about the new world while being unable to adequately describe it. Then along came Albert (among others, of course).
Einstein’s work was rapidly adopted not only because it could satisfactorily explain the observed phenomena at the small scale, but also because it improved the accuracy of existing astronomical measurements which, I believe, underwent successful empirical testing.
With Newton’s physical model beautifully superceded in every way, the science of physics was freed to evolve into it’s modern form with practically all the technological achievements we take for granted today to its credit.
Ann, just because a theory is widely accepted and used doesn’t make it in any way correct. Mostly, theories are developed until they are good enough and then remain that way until they are not. If a theory never changes, it does not indicate that it is either truth or fact, only that no-one is interested in changing it or perhaps that no-one is interested in it at all.
Theories in which many people take an active interest tend to change, rapidly. Sad but true.
Does that help?
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 28th, 2006 at 23:02
Libertus,
“Ann, just because a theory is widely accepted and used doesn’t make it in any way correct.”
Very very true - same goes for E=mc2.
ReplyVictor Wood said: January 29th, 2006 at 23:16
Ann,
Most of the greatest evolutionists use those terms abundantly. But I fully agree with with you - most of them are idiots.
But before I will ever seriously engage anyone in a discussion such as this, I demand an answer to a most elementary and important question. If there were a God, would it not be unscientific to ignore his/her/its impact upon the universe?
ReplyAnn Onymous said: January 30th, 2006 at 21:37
Yes - it is daft to ignore the effect of anything which can be demonstrated to exist. However I doubt that God/gods will ever enter this category - though I am prepared to be proved wrong. (I hope not though - hell has never been all that appealing to me.)
ReplyAnn Onymous said: February 1st, 2006 at 16:12
So with that in mind what further arguments are there against evolution?
ReplyLibertus said: February 2nd, 2006 at 14:53
I’ll argue against, of course, if I can.
First, explain what you mean by , as I acknowledge several possible meanings.
If you mean then I cannot argue against. Rocks evolve, by that definition.
If you mean Darwin’s then I cannot argue against. I am different from my parents, as are all living things that reproduce sexually, which is all that Darwin studied.
If you mean then I cannot argue against. I’ve been listening to people talking on the radio about MRSA infections in British hospitals.
Unless you mean something other than the above, I have no argument to offer. That said, none of those observed natural phenomena have anything to do with what Prof. Dawkins is talking about. They have no religious context whatsoever and are too weak to be used as arguments against the existence of a creator or creators.
Does the definition of evolution you use contain any reference at all to the creation or otherwise of humans? Have you accepted an evolutionary explanation for life, the universe and everything that does not involveabiogenesis ? If so, that’s the one I’d like to learn more about.
ReplyLibertus said: February 2nd, 2006 at 15:00
As to Hell, it is utter nonsense - a place that can only be created in the human imagination. In other words, not a real place, no matter how life, the universe and everything came to be. Don’t be stupid and let such fancies direct your study of the cosmos or yourself.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: February 2nd, 2006 at 19:09
The only bearing that evolution has on religion is buggering the old argument that “life is so complicated that it can’t have happened ‘by accident’ and so God exists.”
ReplyLibertus said: February 2nd, 2006 at 20:14
No theory of evolution of which I am aware even addresses that argument. Science doesn’t deal with God, ever. Maybe the people who support the theories would like to believe that the argument is buggered, but that doesn’t make it so. is a value judgement, not a fact, and I’m pretty sure both sides of the argument agree that life is complex, despite having no frame of reference from which to make such an assertion. Out of interest, is life more complex than a rock, or a planet, or a star, or a solar system?
I mentioned abiogenesis. How does modern evolutionary theory deal with that problem? Abiogenesis has not yet been successfully demonstrated. It remains a gaping, vicious wound in all evolutionary theories and is mostly just ignored because the sheepish lay can be guaranteed not to investigate the meaning of words they don’t understand.
Did life arise from the lifeless, or not? If so, how?
ReplyAnn Onymous said: February 3rd, 2006 at 21:33
I do not know all the answers - the frontier is always being pushed. (frontline theories include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid)
ReplyLibertus said: February 3rd, 2006 at 23:23
I’m still at the stage, so you’re ahead of me.
I’ll read the Wikipedia entry and see what I make of it. I like frontiers!
ReplyAnn Onymous said: February 4th, 2006 at 14:42
Ha, always challenge the accepted opinion.
ReplyAnn Onymous said: February 7th, 2006 at 21:57
“Despite its claims to the contrary, I find the scientific community among the among the most close-minded segments of humanity. The “scientific establishment” do not allow free thought and will close ranks at the slightest whisper of “heresy” from accepted norms.”
Unfortunatly there are some disreputable scientists however I would not tarnish an entire group with the same brush.
ReplyLibertus said: March 2nd, 2006 at 08:06
Received today. Prof. Dawkins makes his pitch, finally.
Dear Amazon.co.uk Customer,Matt Ridley have also ordered Richard Dawkins . For this reason, you might like to know that this book will be released soon. You can pre-order your copy for just GBP 7.49 (50% off the RRP) …
Note: links by me
We’ve noticed that customers who have purchased books by
Yes, it is true, I purchased and read
Reply