AiG and Checkmate

[Galle]

Sorry - first link requires a subscription, and 2nd link is broken.

Sorry, this should be fixed.

They are more interested in advancing the knowledge base and spreading the message than fighting against secular journals.

Creationists keep claiming that there's some vast conspiracy to keep them out of science, but all we ever see is them refusing to do science. If it were otherwise, they would have plenty of examples of unfair dismissal. If it were otherwise, we'd finally have a scientific theory of creationism. Instead, we have some webpages that ramble on about impossible vapor canopies. Instead, whenever people ask for a theory of creationism, they're met with silence (or the occasional cry of, "I don't have to tell you, this is some sort of trap!" which isn't any better).

 

[theIdi0t]

Wow. It has nothing to do with ego - but everything to do with Scripture. Scripture says that man is special, made in the image of God, and needing the incredible love gift of Jesus. Am I correct that other TEs do not support this, or do you (other TEs) accept the general atheistic position that we are all animals?

Well I take the position of Solomon:

Eccles 3,18-19:
I said to myself: As for the children of men, it is God's way of testing them and of showing that they are in themselves like beasts.

For the lot of man and of beast is one lot; the one dies as well as the other. Both have the same life-breath, and man has no advantage over the beast; but all is vanity.

Since Juvenism granted me the privilege of stretching my scriptural interpretations, I would like to say that Solomon here is talking about evolution, and the one lot refers to us as the descendants of a common ancestor.

I also would like to mention that Abraham in his humility referred to himself as the dirt. God may see me as special, but I don't know about supporting a theology that tells God, "Hey, I am special", I much prefer a theology that supports the humility of God's friend Abraham.

 

[gluadys]

Wow. It has nothing to do with ego - but everything to do with Scripture. Scripture says that man is special, made in the image of God, and needing the incredible love gift of Jesus. Am I correct that other TEs do not support this, or do you (other TEs) accept the general atheistic position that we are all animals?

That we are all animals is not an general "atheist" position. It has long been understood by Christians that we are animals. Linnaeus, a pre-Darwinian creationist, classified humans as animals in the class of mammals, in the order of primates. Christians before him also classified humans as animals. Scripture speaks of humans being animals (Ecclesiastes 3:18).

Yes, I certainly do agree with the evidence that we are animals.

 

[Galle]

Wow. It has nothing to do with ego - but everything to do with Scripture. Scripture says that man is special, made in the image of God, and needing the incredible love gift of Jesus.

Which says nothing about ancestry and explains nothing about the twin nested hierarchy we find. What you have is a religious claim whose physical interpretation is ambiguous, not a scientific reason to draw a sharp line between humans and the rest of life.

Am I correct that other TEs do not support this, or do you (other TEs) accept the general atheistic position that we are all animals?

What is this "general atheistic position" supposed to mean? It's the "general atheistic position" that 2 + 2 = 4. Should I doubt that? It's the "general atheistic position" that Saturn's orbit is further from the Sun than Jupiter's. Should I doubt that? When it comes to science, there is not the "atheistic" position and the "Christian" position (to say nothing of non-Christian theists). If the electron has a certain mass when measured by atheists, then it's going to have the same mass when measured by Christians. If Christians observe that oxygen is necessary for combustion, then it's going to be the same for atheists.

As for humans being animals, of course we are! What else do you think we'd be, fungi?

 

[laptoppop]

Rather than derail this thread with a discussion of man being just an animal or not, I've started a new thread to discuss it more fully.

 

[laptoppop]

Sorry, this should be fixed.

Still can't get to the first link without a subscription - but the second link works now.

HOWEVER, here's an article which corrects the "facts" from the blog posting you linked to:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/chronicle_of_higher_education.html

Here's a quote from the article relevant to the charge that his research "dropped off" after becoming a professor:
"It is notable that Gonzalez’s department nominated him for an “early achievement” award in research at ISU in 2004."
(This was BEFORE his co-authored book on ID came out)

I especially want to point out the last part. After refuting the accusations that his research has "dropped off" the article mentions:
Two astronomy faculty, including the chair of the ISU Department of Physics and Astronomy, admitted that ID played a role in their choice to deny tenure to Dr. Gonzalez.
Two faculty who voted on Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure have ties to a statement denouncing intelligent design as “creationist pseudoscience”.
A tenured physicist in Dr. Gonzalez's department who voted on Gonzalez’s tenure has now publicly admitted that he voted against Gonzalez solely because he disagreed with Gonzalez’s view that intelligent design is science.
120 ISU faculty signed a petition condemning intelligent design in 2005 and urging all other ISU faculty to do likewise.

 

[gluadys]

Rather than derail this thread with a discussion of man being just an animal or not, I've started a new thread to discuss it more fully.

Your original question was:

Am I correct that other TEs do not support this, or do you (other TEs) accept the general atheistic position that we are all animals?

I don't see the word "just" anywhere in that question.

If you had asked whether we agree that we are "just animals", you would have received a different response. But that is not what you asked.

 

[busterdog]

Well, I do think that our fellows TEs have been a bit harsh on you, and I don't think your argument thus far deserves the scorn you have been receiving. (And I'm wondering if I have said anything in this post that might have came off as such as well, though I don't believe so.)

On Fridays I usually watch Bill Maher, and his audience is by in large composed of liberals and every so often he has a Republican as a guest, and the poor right-winger can barely get out a word without the audience booing him down. Sometimes you want to cheer them on, other times you feel guilty for cheering.

Yes, scorn is a good word for those you have zero respect for.

Please continue. I am really feeling the love. I know its tough love, well, contemptuous love, but its ok, as long as your opponent is wrong.

In fact, I think that is one of the CF rules. You can be insulting to someone as long as they are wrong.

You are aware that "scorn" means "derision" or "contempt"? Pop cites some science that he finds interesting and you think its ok to treat his proposals with derision and contempt. Please help me I understand, though I am pretty sure I do understand from past practice.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes, scorn is a good word for those you have zero respect for.

Please continue. I am really feeling the love. I know its tough love, well, contemptuous love, but its ok, as long as your opponent is wrong.

In fact, I think that is one of the CF rules. You can be insulting to someone as long as they are wrong.

You are aware that "scorn" means "derision" or "contempt"? Pop cites some science that he finds interesting and you think its ok to treat his proposals with derision and contempt. Please help me I understand, though I am pretty sure I do understand from past practice.

Well, I am not aware of anything that I said that came off as scornful, perhaps you can tell me where I treated his proposals with derision and contempt?

 

[crawfish]

1) AiG is just one creationist group among many
2) There's a whole field of study into working on defining "kinds" -- called baraminology.
A peer reviewed article about the status of baraminology as of last year:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
An example article about work done regarding the baraminology of snakes:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm

Not even remotely close to "checkmate"

TheIdi0t - You didn't realize his king could jump to any open position on the board at any time, did you?

(I'm just funnin' you, pop)

 

[laptoppop]

TheIdi0t - You didn't realize his king could jump to any open position on the board at any time, did you?

(I'm just funnin' you, pop)

Not to mention the duplication machine in my king's pocket....

 

[busterdog]

v
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterdog
Yes, scorn is a good word for those you have zero respect for.

Please continue. I am really feeling the love. I know its tough love, well, contemptuous love, but its ok, as long as your opponent is wrong.

In fact, I think that is one of the CF rules. You can be insulting to someone as long as they are wrong.

You are aware that "scorn" means "derision" or "contempt"? Pop cites some science that he finds interesting and you think its ok to treat his proposals with derision and contempt. Please help me I understand, though I am pretty sure I do understand from past practice.

Well, I am not aware of anything that I said that came off as scornful, perhaps you can tell me where I treated his proposals with derision and contempt?

Well, I am not aware of anything that I said that came off as scornful, perhaps you can tell me where I treated his proposals with derision and contempt?

My mistake, I didn't read your post carefully enough. I thought you said "I DO think [it was deserving of] scorn". Sorry for flying off the handle.

 

[Deamiter]

HOWEVER, here's an article which corrects the "facts" from the blog posting you linked to:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/chronicle_of_higher_education.html

Did you check the publications yourself? If you go through the 34 publications and remove the book reviews, updated textbooks and those published as previous work from Washington State, there are nine of which he is the sole or primary author. The majority of these (probably 6-7) are not unique research but literature reviews where he summarizes the current state of research -- a worthwhile task, but not really indicative of his research.

There's some good research in there, but the article you cited seems to include all 34 hits (even book reviews and articles submitted from Washington) as evidence that he was publishing more than the other professors.

 

[theIdi0t]

With exception to the veiled insults being tossed around (both ways), I have to agree with those in doubt of the concept of a "biblical kind." Until the baraminologists can actually come up with some sort of objective diagnosis delineating "kinds", then their work is nothing more than hearsay

Perhaps I am being a bit too pessimistic, but I do not believe that baramnologists will ever provide "some sort of objective diagnosis delineating "kinds"". Because if they did, it would work against them not for them and I think they are well aware of this, particularly in concern to those species that show links between the various groups.

I think the safest bet, is to avoid defining Kinds for as long as you can, give the impression that you are working on it, use the term "Kind" quite often, and retract when questioned about what it means.

In claiming that there is no evolutionary barrier within Kinds, you set yourself up for failure when you claim that such a barrier exists for Kind groupings. Since there is no line within Kinds, there is no line outside of Kinds either.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Mallon]

POr am I missing something?

No, I would have to agree with you. I would say that creating a rubric definition of "kind" is near impossible because, as the baraminologists recognize, life is ordered into nested hierarchies on the basis of both morphology and genetics. And because of the continuous nature of such hierarchies, there is no way to draw boundaries in any objective or meaningful way. Some folks think snakes are a "kind" in their own right, being defined by their leglessness. But how do we know that the more inclusive group to which the snakes belong -- the Anguimorpha -- is not a "kind" of its own, defined by the presence of a forked tongue? Again, the reliance on hybridization to help us answer such questions is void because 99% of all life on earth is dead. If they're honest, baraminologists will eventually catch up with the rest of the biologists and come to realize that categorizing plants and animals is fruitless. That's why we're doing away with higher level taxonomy in the new PhyloCode.