Kalaam Cosmological Argument (philosophy of evolution)

RufusAtticus · #31 23rd June 2002, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have Behe's book in front of me Ray, your statements are based on ignorance. I haven't read it cover to cover, but it is an argument "against" evolution. You may want to do a little more research on the intelligent design position because you are just proving your ignorance with every statement about it.

Well, Lanakila, when you finish his book, can you tell us on what page he disagrees with universal common descent and descent with modification?

RufusAtticus · #32 23rd June 2002, 03:52 PM

"Professor Coyne’s remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil hominid out of sequence than he would." -- Behe, here

That is what Ray K is refering to when he called Behe an "evolutionist." IDers run the gambit from hard-core evolution-deniers like Wells, to near-evolutionists like Behe, and to pure-evolutionists like Denton.

randman · #33 23rd June 2002, 05:37 PM

Well then, IDers are definitely the more rational group, as insistence on athiesm is a type of inverted faith lacking logic.

Morat · #34 23rd June 2002, 06:45 PM

as insistence on athiesm is a type of inverted faith lacking logic.

I'll bite. How so (by which I mean "inverted faith". We'll get to what's logical some other time)?

Ray K · #35 23rd June 2002, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have Behe's book in front of me Ray, your statements are based on ignorance. I haven't read it cover to cover, but it is an argument "against" evolution. You may want to do a little more research on the intelligent design position because you are just proving your ignorance with every statement about it.

Does Behe believe in an ancient Earth? Yes

Does Behe believe that the fossil record is an accurate respresentation of past life on Earth? Yes

Does Behe believe in common descent? Yes

What Behe does not believe in is that new species evolved without divine intervention. That makes him a "theological evolutionist".

Behe believes that, by using "irreduceable complexity", one can prove that a designer must be involved.

Behe in no way supports the creation account in Genesis. In fact, the entire Intelligent Design movement is based around the acceptance of common descent. This is the "dirty, little secret" they rarely talk about because they do not want to alienate their scientifically-illerate creationist supporters.

Ray K · #36 23rd June 2002, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
"Professor Coyne’s remarks about a Precambrian fossil hominid are irrelevant since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent. I would no more expect to find a fossil hominid out of sequence than he would." -- Behe, here

That is what Ray K is refering to when he called Behe an "evolutionist." IDers run the gambit from hard-core evolution-deniers like Wells, to near-evolutionists like Behe, and to pure-evolutionists like Denton.

Yes, I love it when creationists try to use Behe for support. When they are that misinformed, it's not even a fair fight.

npetreley · #37 23rd June 2002, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Wow, there it is again: origins AND evolution. Are you beginning to detect a trend?

Well, Jerry, you finally did it. You crossed the line into the "not worth responding to anymore" category. I doubt if you'll want to get back over to the other side of the line, but you can do that by showing me that truth really does mean something to you, and admit that you're wrong.

The second Berkeley reference is even from a book called Evolution: Investigating the Evidence, Paleontological Society Special Publication Volume 9, 1999. The sample chapter at the link is called, HOW DID IT ALL BEGIN? THE SELF-ASSEMBLY OF ORGANIC MOLECULES AND THE ORIGIN OF CELLULAR LIFE.

But regardless of how any of those materials are worded, the point is that the list includes (among other things) college texts and course materials that obviously consider the origin of life and evolution to be inseparable.

Jerry Smith · #38 23rd June 2002, 08:57 PM

Thank you for considering me not worth responding to. I do not hope to regain the priveledge of being responded to by you.

My objection to your continued assertion that abiogenesis and evolution are inseparable is that the theories and facts of evolution themselves do not depend on how the first life came to be, nor do they address the topic. Obviously, being treated together in a textbook or internet overview does not make them inseperable, it just makes them related. The relationship is that often the unanswered questions that a theory leaves hanging (such as the unanswered questions of the origin of life that evolutionary theory leaves hanging) add to an overall understanding of what the theory itself is all about. They also provide a treatment that is more informative, by brushing on the subjects closest to the theories and facts being discussed.

Now, you have several threads where you have ample opportunity to prove that truthfullness is important to you. I challenge you to do so, but if the fact that you feel I am not worth responding to prevents you, then I will still be appreciative of the fact that you have stopped spamming my posts.