Expelled

[Mallon]

Actually quite a few are openly questioning Darwinism.

Of course people question Darwinism. Darwinism's dead. Your problem is that you equate "Darwinism" with "evolution", which aren't the same thing.

 

[Mallon]

And Molal, is it possible to keep this thread open to non-TEs? I don't want to pull a Mark Mathis.

 

[Molal]

And Molal, is it possible to keep this thread open to non-TEs? I don't want to pull a Mark Mathis.

As far as I can, I will. But, the forum specific guidelines are very clear that this is a TE only forum area.....

Maybe we could move the thread to the origins theology area?

 

[busterdog]

As far as I can, I will. But, the forum specific guidelines are very clear that this is a TE only forum area.....

Maybe we could move the thread to the genera theology area?

Already done.

 

[Assyrian]

I thought we were asked about the guidelines for TE and we wanted it kept open? It is the creationists who wanted an exclusive refuge.

 

[Molal]

Already done.

This thread hasn't moved - did you create a thread in OT?

 

[busterdog]

Actually quite a few are openly questioning Darwinism. See Altenburg 16, which I keep harping on. TEs here seem to adopt much of the criticims by saying that orthodox Darwinists are already pitching the idea of pure randomness in evolution. That being said, what is all the fuss (fired professors and resistance to ID) about?

Trying again:

http://christianforums.com/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=143

Guess I am not trying. Not sure where the thread went.

Oh well.

 

[Molal]

I don't want to be the heavy here - I just want to follow the rules. We can keep on discussing here until I get word from Crawfish about the thread move.

I am pretty sure he will allow the move.

 

[crawfish]

I have no problems with non-TE's posting or debating in this thread, or in this forum. I only posted it here because I wanted to be more negative than I'm willing to be in the main forum.

I don't mind if you move it, though.

 

[Molal]

I have no problems with non-TE's posting or debating in this thread, or in this forum. I only posted it here because I wanted to be more negative than I'm willing to be in the main forum.

I don't mind if you move it, though.

Thank you crawfish.

I will move the thread now - I will leave a re-direct that expires in one week.

Molal

 

[Willtor]

I have only listened to interviews and watched the trailer. All the discussion around the movie with Sproul, O'Reilly shows that what Stein presents is incompabible with the outrage of evolutionists. Maybe the movie is radically different that what I have seen. Stein has made an excellent presentation in inteviews.

Dawkins and Myers are just calling for the waaaaaahmbulance, ie, whining, having been aced.

There was an interview that he did on Pat Robertson's show. It was posted in the Crevo forum. Frankly, it was off the wall. Maybe his other interviews are different, but in this one he went way out to right field even going so far as to argue that evolution didn't explain gravity. Maybe he got caught up in the heat of the moment. But with the sheer range of uninformed comments he made... I'm sure you wouldn't support the complaint that evolution doesn't explain gravity, right?

I'll see if I can find a link.

 

[Willtor]

Ben Stein is Interviewed by Pat Robertson

 

[Melethiel]

As far as I can, I will. But, the forum specific guidelines are very clear that this is a TE only forum area.....

Maybe we could move the thread to the origins theology area?

Incorrect. That was adopted only for the Creationist forum.

 

[Critias]

There was an interview that he did on Pat Robertson's show. It was posted in the Crevo forum. Frankly, it was off the wall. Maybe his other interviews are different, but in this one he went way out to right field even going so far as to argue that evolution didn't explain gravity. Maybe he got caught up in the heat of the moment. But with the sheer range of uninformed comments he made... I'm sure you wouldn't support the complaint that evolution doesn't explain gravity, right?

I'll see if I can find a link.

Actually, you're a bit wrong. He didn't say evolution, he said Darwinism - darwinism doesn't talk about gravity, thermodynamics, etc. And his point was, why can't there be free speech in science to talk about theories, even if they reference a Designer. Also, note that he didn't say who the Designer has to be, but rather that he believes the Designer to be God.

That being said, it seems you are saying, in your quote above, that darwinism and evolution are the same thing. Did you just not listen well enough to the video or do you believe that darwinism and evolution are the same?

 

[Molal]

Incorrect. That was adopted only for the Creationist forum.

oh

 

[busterdog]

There was an interview that he did on Pat Robertson's show. It was posted in the Crevo forum. Frankly, it was off the wall. Maybe his other interviews are different, but in this one he went way out to right field even going so far as to argue that evolution didn't explain gravity. Maybe he got caught up in the heat of the moment. But with the sheer range of uninformed comments he made... I'm sure you wouldn't support the complaint that evolution doesn't explain gravity, right?

I'll see if I can find a link.

Thanks for the video. Some of the arguments were not the greatest, but it certainly wasn't off the wall.

I am sure the Nazi parallel is offensive, but its not like anyone can prove him wrong (or right). Its just an argument with some logic. If you misapply that logic to require that Darwinism cause literal pogroms at Harvard, then it would sound absurd. But, the argument is only a form of "but for" causation -- ie, it was one of many contributing factors.

I didnt catch the gravity argument until he said it the third time. Its the anthropic principle common to most sciences. In short, ID does a much better job that evolution at dealing with a range of issues, such as why we have the pro=life physical laws we have. Something like that.

Once Darwinism starts to abandon randomness as an explanation for events, which it has; once the watchmaker argument finds its way into neo Darwinism, which it has; once Darwinists themselves as in the Altneburg 16 start getting lambasted themselves for calling evolutionary processes extremely unlikely or uncanny, but for inherent properties in matter, I hardly see why anyone has a problem with Ben Stein.

 

[Willtor]

Actually, you're a bit wrong. He didn't say evolution, he said Darwinism - darwinism doesn't talk about gravity, thermodynamics, etc. And his point was, why can't there be free speech in science to talk about theories, even if they reference a Designer. Also, note that he didn't say who the Designer has to be, but rather that he believes the Designer to be God.

That being said, it seems you are saying, in your quote above, that darwinism and evolution are the same thing. Did you just not listen well enough to the video or do you believe that darwinism and evolution are the same?

Apparently I didn't listen carefully enough. How does he use them differently?

 

[Willtor]

Thanks for the video. Some of the arguments were not the greatest, but it certainly wasn't off the wall.

I am sure the Nazi parallel is offensive, but its not like anyone can prove him wrong (or right). Its just an argument with some logic. If you misapply that logic to require that Darwinism cause literal pogroms at Harvard, then it would sound absurd. But, the argument is only a form of "but for" causation -- ie, it was one of many contributing factors.

I didnt catch the gravity argument until he said it the third time. Its the anthropic principle common to most sciences. In short, ID does a much better job that evolution at dealing with a range of issues, such as why we have the pro=life physical laws we have. Something like that.

Once Darwinism starts to abandon randomness as an explanation for events, which it has; once the watchmaker argument finds its way into neo Darwinism, which it has; once Darwinists themselves as in the Altneburg 16 start getting lambasted themselves for calling evolutionary processes extremely unlikely or uncanny, but for inherent properties in matter, I hardly see why anyone has a problem with Ben Stein.

The Nazis weren't evolutionists (or Darwinists or whatever). It was contrary to their ideology so they rejected it.

All that aside, do you think that his understanding of evolution was closely matched to evolutionists' understanding of evolution? I can tell you for certain that it wasn't. _That_ was the great weakness. After all, anybody can say that person x believes y, and then proceed to refute y. But if person x actually thinks z (even if he is using the same word) the one who refutes has really added nothing to the conversation.

It is this last part that concerns me with respect to your complaints that randomness provides (or at least provided) the basis for the evolutionary mechanism. I'm not sure it's either increased or decreased in its role. In my own evolutionary programming models, randomness is necessary but it is bounded by the fitness function (natural selection).

 

[busterdog]

The Nazis weren't evolutionists (or Darwinists or whatever). It was contrary to their ideology so they rejected it.

All that aside, do you think that his understanding of evolution was closely matched to evolutionists' understanding of evolution? I can tell you for certain that it wasn't. _That_ was the great weakness. After all, anybody can say that person x believes y, and then proceed to refute y. But if person x actually thinks z (even if he is using the same word) the one who refutes has really added nothing to the conversation.

It is this last part that concerns me with respect to your complaints that randomness provides (or at least provided) the basis for the evolutionary mechanism. I'm not sure it's either increased or decreased in its role. In my own evolutionary programming models, randomness is necessary but it is bounded by the fitness function (natural selection).

Regarding Nazism, you absolutely right.

However, we would argue that it was a "slippery slope", sort of like what we were taught about drugs in school: try a little pot and you are bound to be shooting up. There is no 1 for 1 correlation, but very few people didnt smoke before trying heroin. But, many people who smoked pot never really took more than a very passing interest. Its a confusing area, and I think that people would like Ben Stein to be more confused about it than he really is. Most of the soundbites are taking advantave of this inherent confusion in these ideas about causation.

As for randomness, conceptually, I have a real hard time with the notion of "semi-randomness" or partial randomness. If you look at, for example, the mathematical power of life processes to overcome the odds against functioning enzymes, is any concept of partial randomness really valid?

Said otherwise, if you take a "inherent property" (or ID) that is well-matched to a "random" process, such that life processes result, how exactly do you segregate any portion of the whole to make one part random and one part "inherent" or "designed?" An inherent proclivity to take advantage of randomness (assuming it exists) means that there isn't any randomness anymore. Whatever is "random" is subsumed by the inherent properties. If design is an even number and random an odd number, when you multiply them, you always get an even number and you can't get an odd number.

To me, the latter issue is the core of the current ID v. Darwinism debate. Most evolutionists are blowing by it. ID has not quite discovered the fertile ground in neo-Darwinism. I think that would be a great OT thread, though we have had a few go rounds. I just don't think it is well understood by creationists or evolutionists.

As for "partial randomness", this notion also betrays an interesting idea: much of the territory presumed to be random has given way to notions of inherent properties of molecules to create life (or ID). It would be presumptious to say that randomness is not an unexplained area where designed might eventually be discovered.

 

[gluadys]

Regarding
As for randomness, conceptually, I have a real hard time with the notion of "semi-randomness" or partial randomness.

Well, I have always wondered why anti-evolutionists make such a big deal about randomness as it pertains to evolution. I am not aware of any scientific suggestion that evolution is random through and through. Natural selection, by virtue of the fact that it selects, is not random.

Even with the randomness of mutations, are we dealing with ontological randomness or only epistemelogical randomness (i.e. WE cannot predict them)?

It seems to me that the focus on randomness is simply another strawman argument that misrepresents the process of evolution and assumes an atheistic perspective that is not intrinsic to the science.