Help with a letter.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

One thing I will say for Dawkins -- he is a clever writer. He insists that he is too pious to accuse his opponents of evil intentions, but he offers the suggestion as food for thought none the less.

If you begin with this closed minded attitude we wont get far. Like Dawkins, you are beginning with the assumption that evolution must be True and so anyone who disputes it can only be ignorant of dishonest.

Or did you read the quotes and think: 'Those are some interesting points, there may be some serious issues that need to be addressed'?

Then we agree. So when someone says 'Evolution is a fact -- we see it all the time' They are referring to 'micro evolution' and this should not be regarded as evidence for historic evolution.

The purpose of the quote was to show a problem with evolutionary mythology. As for the remainder of the paragraph, Lewin is an evolutionist -- he must assume that there is a link -- even if a link can not be empircally demonstrated. He recognizes a lack of empirical proof, but quickly reaffirms his faith in the theory.

I am not sure how you 'refute' a parable. It is not evidence. It is an illustration of my viewpoint. You can question the validity of my point of view and THEN we can dissect the merits of each analogous point, but the parable itself is merely an introduction -- it is not intended to be anything more.

Dembski has made an eloquent summary of a common problem. I see no reason to attempt an improvment on something that has already been well said. It also illustrates that this is not merely my opinion, it is an opinion shared by a respected thinker.

Once again, the parable is merely an introduction. My point of view is that evolution is mythology. I EXPECT people to disagree with this point of view, however contradiction is not argument. I have not found the criticisms offered so far convincing -- I am still a YEC. If I were convinced that someone's criticisms had merit, I would ammend the parable -- I am always looking for a better way to express my point of view.

Here is what I will promise: I will take you as seriously as you take me. If you demonstrate that you have made an effort to interact with my point of view, I will also make an effort to honestly address the points you make. If you feel that I have been evasive, feel free to link to this post and let others judge for themselves.

If you were merely looking for a loophole to extricate yourself from serious discussion, you have it.

Do you consider 'funny' one-liners, a productive use of your time?

Your profile indicates that you average 5.7 posts per day. This is FAR more time than I have for this forum. (I post less than once a day. If this were my full time job, I cant imagine having the time to post more than 4 posts per day.)

This is not a demand, it is an invitation: Read my posts, ask honest questions, and I will make every effort I have to give reasonable answers.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

One thing I will say for Dawkins -- he is a clever writer. He insists that he is too pious to accuse his opponents of evil intentions, but he offers the suggestion as food for thought none the less.

Speaking of the quote, Dawkins has comments about it,
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...kins_21_3.html

Why do you pop into post quotes sometimes unrelated to the post and then pop out?

I'll admit Bevet's posts are generally fairly long. I know what he is trying to do though and I think it's admirable. Not to mention time consuming.

The point is that he quotes out of context, and that by doing this he undermines his own credibility.

If you begin with this closed minded attitude we wont get far. Like Dawkins, you are beginning with the assumption that evolution must be True and so anyone who disputes it can only be ignorant of dishonest.

No, as you will see in the article Arikay pointed out. He had considered it, but also rejected that. Furthermore, Dawkins own experiences really don't enter into it here, IMHO. It is his honest experience that people who have debated him know very little about evolutionary theory.

I see the same here often, were people set up a strawman of evolution and start to debate that. There point are refuted (although they often do not want to hear it themselves) since they do not describe the theory of evolution but a strawman. This is not evil (and Dawkins doesn't describe it as such) but ignorance. If people try to correct them on the theory of evolution, they often close their eyes. This may be willfull ignorance, or fear that their belief will be disproofed if they do so, but this also is not evil. And again, Dawkins also does not view it as such.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin

As for Lewin's trustworthiness, there is no indication of partisanship -- he is an evolutionist. You seem to suggest that he has been sloppy. This could be, however he earned a PhD in Biochemistry and he was News Editor of Science Magazine for several years. Should we dismiss everything we read in Science Magazine? or by Roger Lewin?

The original quote I used was a general assessment of the conference. If you can cite someone who disputes the accuracy of this assessment, now would be a good time to mention it.

For completeness of my previous post. This is the full quote of Roger Lewin.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

According to the Chicago conference, micro evolution alone might not be complete in its description. However, it is probably still important. What also is omitted is the description of micro evolution and macro evolution in the proceedings (which is important in understanding the quote). That punctuated equilibrium is discussed as a possible answer in the rest of the text should be no surprise.

The purpose of the quote was to show a problem with evolutionary mythology. As for the remainder of the paragraph, Lewin is an evolutionist -- he must assume that there is a link -- even if a link can not be empircally demonstrated. He recognizes a lack of empirical proof, but quickly reaffirms his faith in the theory.

No, that is not true. It demonstrates a point which was debated at that conference. When they entered the conference, it was a problem. When they exited, it was solved. That is what we do, we solve problems.

Also, I put down the full quote in my previous post.

Why did you omit the last two sentences of that paragraph? It completely turns around the conclusion people would draw on the basis of the quote you give. Did you realize that? If not, how do you interpret the last two sentences? If so, isn't this dishonest?

The central question of the Republican Convention was whether George Bush is fit to be President. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the convention, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether George Bush is a total political failure. Republicans would probably endorse his candidacy for city council or maybe even the Texas state senate.

OTH I commend you for going beyond the standard knee jerk response, and investing at least some effort in personally investigating my quotes.I think this is the second time this month someone gave my quotes some thought. I am truly grateful for your substantive criticism.

As explained above, this is because of the way you are going at it. So I'll make you a second deal. I'll look at the quotes you provided earlier in depth, if you start writing your own lines and stop quoting. If not, I'll just scan over them and write funny one-liners. Deal?

Do you consider 'funny' one-liners, a productive use of your time?

Yes, I do think 'Funny' one-liners are a productive use of my time. They make me smile. Smiling is a good thing.

Why do you assume Dawkins is honest?

You have made vague generalities. Can you give specific examples? Perhaps a relevant example from this thread?

How do you interpret 'clear no'?

You did not post the full quote. You didnt even post the full paragraph. Here is the full paragraph:

The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequences. Changes above the species level - involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns - are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

Why did you omit the first two sentences of the paragraph? I omitted the last two sentences because they were not noteworthy.

Suppose you found the following sentence in a press release:

It would be big news. Would you feel cheated if some news reports focused on the first 2 sentences and ignored the last 2 sentences?

I enjoy a good laugh as much as anyone. Some of the 'jokes' on here might be worthy of a sit com, but genuine humor is rare. Most one-liners are exceedingly banal and dilute the quality of discussion.

If you want, I'll search for it.

People only see what they are prepared to see. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.~ Richard Feynman

Scientists, being as a rule more or less human beings, passionately stick up for their ideas, their pet theories. It's up to someone else to show you are wrong. ~ Niles Eldredge

But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. ~ Roger Lewin

In the acquisition of new knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. ~ William Broad and Nicholas Wade

When dealing with people remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity. ~ Dale Carnegie

For completeness of my previous post. This is the full quote of Roger Lewin.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

According to the Chicago conference, micro evolution alone might not be complete in its description. However, it is probably still important. What also is omitted is the description of micro evolution and macro evolution in the proceedings (which is important in understanding the quote). That punctuated equilibrium is discussed as a possible answer in the rest of the text should be no surprise.

The purpose of the quote was to show a problem with evolutionary mythology. As for the remainder of the paragraph, Lewin is an evolutionist -- he must assume that there is a link -- even if a link can not be empircally demonstrated. He recognizes a lack of empirical proof, but quickly reaffirms his faith in the theory.

No, that is not true. It demonstrates a point which was debated at that conference. When they entered the conference, it was a problem. When they exited, it was solved. That is what we do, we solve problems.

How do you interpret 'clear no'?

In light of the sentences following which add a lot of nuance to 'clear no'.

'Clear no' actually becomes 'the mechanisms are valid but we have to add things'.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

One thing I will say for Dawkins -- he is a clever writer. He insists that he is too pious to accuse his opponents of evil intentions, but he offers the suggestion as food for thought none the less.

I'll admit Bevet's posts are generally fairly long. I know what he is trying to do though and I think it's admirable. Not to mention time consuming.

The point is that he quotes out of context, and that by doing this he undermines his own credibility.

If you begin with this closed minded attitude we wont get far. Like Dawkins, you are beginning with the assumption that evolution must be True and so anyone who disputes it can only be ignorant of dishonest.

No, as you will see in the article Arikay pointed out. He had considered it, but also rejected that. Furthermore, Dawkins own experiences really don't enter into it here, IMHO. It is his honest experience that people who have debated him know very little about evolutionary theory.

Why do you assume Dawkins is honest?

What reason do I have for not doing so? I know Dawkins to oppose creationism, I don't know him as a dishonest person and I won't judge him as such unless I have some very good reasons to do so.

I see the same here often, were people set up a strawman of evolution and start to debate that. There point are refuted (although they often do not want to hear it themselves) since they do not describe the theory of evolution but a strawman.

This is not evil (and Dawkins doesn't describe it as such) but ignorance. If people try to correct them on the theory of evolution, they often close their eyes. This may be willfull ignorance, or fear that their belief will be disproofed if they do so, but this also is not evil. And again, Dawkins also does not view it as such.

You have made vague generalities. Can you give specific examples? Perhaps a relevant example from this thread?

In recent threads:
http://christianforums.com/t895822
False dichotomy God vs Abiogenesis

http://christianforums.com/t873617
evolutionists poll
http://christianforums.com/t849945
creationists poll

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp
The above link is a nice collection of straw men, non-sequiturs, false dichotomies and (very probably) every other debating falacy ever used. Take special notice of his jumbling of abiogenesis and evolution.

edited to add: Oh yeah, and in this thread. Your posts where you seem to think that refuting a mechanism by which evolution can occur also refutes whether evolution can occur. This is obviously false, as I hope I have pointed out sufficiently.

OTH I commend you for going beyond the standard knee jerk response, and investing at least some effort in personally investigating my quotes.I think this is the second time this month someone gave my quotes some thought. I am truly grateful for your substantive criticism.

As explained above, this is because of the way you are going at it. So I'll make you a second deal. I'll look at the quotes you provided earlier in depth, if you start writing your own lines and stop quoting.

Help me with the 'nuance': Would you say the interpretation is not clearly No? or not clearly No?
Add what things?

Dawins holds allegiance to evoluionary mythology as the gold standard by which a person's intelligence and personal integrity should be measured. As a Christian, the Bible is my gold standard and Dawkins falls short. If you read the Dawkins essay and use allegiance to the Bible rather than evoluionary mythology as the standard of Truth, you will find that the points Dawkins made, apply to evoluionists.

When a valid criticism of Darwinism is first proposed, it is dismissed without an adequate response, either on some technicality or with some irrelevancy or by simply being ignored. As time passes, people forget that Darwinists never adequately met the criticism. But Darwinism is still ruling the roost. Since the criticism failed to dislodge Darwinism, the criticism itself must have been discredited or refuted somewhere. Thereafter the criticism becomes known as "that discredited criticism that was refuted a long time ago." And, after that, even to raise the criticism betrays an outdated conception of evolutionary theory. In this way, the criticism, though entirely valid, simply vanishes into oblivion. ~ William Dembski

One tactic evolutionists NEVER get tired of is the suggestion that if an evolutionist has addressed a topic -- that topic is off limits for eternity. Disputation is not refutation. (Notice that this is a one way street -- When is the last time someone said 'Creationists have already refuted that point'?)

I have not participated on these threads. I do not care to read them or comment on them at this time.

Speaking of straw men:
I have been a YEC for many years, and I doubt I have spent 10 minutes reading through Hovind's web site. If he has written any books, I have not read them. I have no opinion on his work, however I will make this comment: He seems to be the darling of all evolutionists -- they LOVE to bring him up and make derisive comments.

It is encouraging that you remembered to refer to my posts even if it was only an afterthought. You seem to be recalling a point I never made. Could you quote the specific post where I made this assertion?

Evolution begins with mutation, an offspring genetically different to the parent...Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.

Bait n Switch.

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin

The only thing Gould says here is that large transitions as seen in the fossil record will take longer than can be directly observed there. No worries for us, we know that already.

Does this have any implications for observations of 'micro evolution' as evidence for historic evolution? Please explain.

No. Not at all, because 'micro evolution' is no evidence of historic evolution.

Then we agree. So when someone says 'Evolution is a fact -- we see it all the time' They are referring to 'micro evolution' and this should not be regarded as evidence for historic evolution.

For completeness of my previous post. This is the full quote of Roger Lewin.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

According to the Chicago conference, micro evolution alone might not be complete in its description. However, it is probably still important. What also is omitted is the description of micro evolution and macro evolution in the proceedings (which is important in understanding the quote). That punctuated equilibrium is discussed as a possible answer in the rest of the text should be no surprise.

The purpose of the quote was to show a problem with evolutionary mythology. As for the remainder of the paragraph, Lewin is an evolutionist -- he must assume that there is a link -- even if a link can not be empircally demonstrated. He recognizes a lack of empirical proof, but quickly reaffirms his faith in the theory.

No, that is not true. It demonstrates a point which was debated at that conference. When they entered the conference, it was a problem. When they exited, it was solved. That is what we do, we solve problems.

How do you interpret 'clear no'?

In light of the sentences following which add a lot of nuance to 'clear no'.

Help me with the 'nuance': Would you say the interpretation is not clearly No? or not clearly No?

Not clearly no as in we can't extrapolate the mechanisms of micro evolution to macro evolution.

'Clear no' actually becomes 'the mechanisms are valid but we have to add things'.

Add what things?

Clearly no as in it is a combination of the standard mechanisms of micro evolution with other mechanisms, such as isolation.

The key point here is in how Lewin defines micro evolution. Micro evolution is defined as small changes in the whole population. However, what Gould, amongst others, had found was that in fact, small changes in only an isolated part of the population result in big changes. Again, see the figure on page 884, Alternative models of evolutionary change). If you look at the figure, the left presents the model with only micro evolution, the right punctuated equilibrium (which is presented in this figure as micro evolution in small populations). So what we add to micro evolution is stasis and isolated groups, in other words, the punctuated equilibrium model.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

One thing I will say for Dawkins -- he is a clever writer. He insists that he is too pious to accuse his opponents of evil intentions, but he offers the suggestion as food for thought none the less.

I'll admit Bevet's posts are generally fairly long. I know what he is trying to do though and I think it's admirable. Not to mention time consuming.

The point is that he quotes out of context, and that by doing this he undermines his own credibility.

If you begin with this closed minded attitude we wont get far. Like Dawkins, you are beginning with the assumption that evolution must be True and so anyone who disputes it can only be ignorant of dishonest.

No, as you will see in the article Arikay pointed out. He had considered it, but also rejected that. Furthermore, Dawkins own experiences really don't enter into it here, IMHO. It is his honest experience that people who have debated him know very little about evolutionary theory.

Why do you assume Dawkins is honest?

What reason do I have for not doing so? I know Dawkins to oppose creationism, I don't know him as a dishonest person and I won't judge him as such unless I have some very good reasons to do so.

Dawins holds allegiance to evoluionary mythology as the gold standard by which a person's intelligence and personal integrity should be measured. As a Christian, the Bible is my gold standard and Dawkins falls short. If you read the Dawkins essay and use allegiance to the Bible rather than evoluionary mythology as the standard of Truth, you will find that the points Dawkins made, apply to evoluionists.

What Dawkins is saying is that people come to him with criticisms based on a misunderstanding of evolution theory. This is an observation of him. They criticize him, but only because they don't understand what he is saying. That is what his observation is. That is the whole point of Dawkins in his essay. The criticism he encountered was due to a misunderstanding of the theory or not being familiar with the facts.

Now, maybe he is wrong in this, I don't know. These are his observations, and to picture him as dishonest because he states them as such is, well, dishonest.