I read this blog post this morning about Creationism being supported by the evidence of the Lochness Monster.

It seems to me that such teaching mocks the Christian faith and maintains the consistent track record of Christian dogma that resulted in Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems remaining banned until 1835.

What does a faith system have to do with scientific discovery and the teaching of science?

A faith system that requires adherence to doctrines that are contrary to the discoveries of the sciences seems to me to be a misplaced faith, one that must fail in its pursuit of truth.

Which is why when atheists bug about Christians opposing science, I direct them to this interview featuring Prof John Haught:

Highlights here:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

and a link to the complete interview which is at salon.com

I personally think Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and other writings are far more fantastic than the modest miracles and godman narrative of the Gospels. But that is just me...

jayd

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, ag. 19, 2009, 10:31pm.

Non scientist Christians, as well as other non scientists, need a higher level of exposure to mathematics and sciences. Politicians are a prominent group that would benefit from more exposure to science and to mathematics.

We live is a scientific age, and live with the tremendous benefits of that science. We need to live with the tremendous responsibilities of that science as well.

A faith system that requires adherence to doctrines that are contrary to the discoveries of the sciences seems to me to be a misplaced faith, one that must fail in its pursuit of truth.

Much of the conclusions in science are based on reasoning, not actual proof. Many creationists are attempting to point out that evolution itself is a religion, because of being based on assumptions and reasoning.

I have not read the article you reference above, but I have read many other creationists theories and some of them make very good points of argument that are not based on the Lockness Monster.

Much of it in fact is pointing out areas where scientists are making assumptions based on scientific facts. Drawing conclusions based on science where the conclusion itself can not be proven. If however, these same basic facts/scientific tests can support God's word as well, then how does anyone claim they prove the Bible wrong?

The key is to separate what is proven, from assumptions and evolutionists conclusions. If we can get to bare facts and examine how these fit with evolution, Christianity, etc. What will we have?

One can refer to the letting of blood as a cure for illness as an illustration of the frailty of science, for it is an evolving experience. The experience of God - without the unnecessary additive of 'Christianity' as a bolster - is a personal adventure, and best undertaken as a solitary pursuit. Only then will its mysteries make themselves known to the individual. No man can share that experience with another. It is truly a singular experience - as Christ himself taught. Isn't it funny that they named a religion after a man who disavowed any interest in having a religion formed around his teachings?

Science is a process of examination, and 'God is in the details.'

Isn't it funny that they named a religion after a man who disavowed any interest in having a religion formed around his teachings?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)

No doubt Peter misheard.

1. A faith system that requires adherence to doctrines that are contrary to the discoveries of the sciences seems to me to be a misplaced faith, one that must fail in its pursuit of truth.

Few creationists would say that that is what they were doing.

Those who are both vocal opponents of creationism/ID as well as calling themselves Christians often claim that their faith could not be opposed to science since faith and science cover different categories. On one formulation, faith is about values and science is about empirical facts. (This sort of argument was made--badly in my opinion--by the atheist/agnostic Stephen J. Gould in Rocks of Ages. But this seems to me to be contrary to the plain meaning of the most fundamental claims of virtually every religion. To take perhaps the most obvious example, science could conceivably show that the Resurrection was a hoax. What then?

With apologies to Plantinga, it's either,

When faith and reason clash.
Let reason go to smash.

or

When faith and reason smash,
'Tis faith must go to smash.

(See his "When Faith and Reason Clash" in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics.)

Depending on how one defines "faith", neither possibility seems inherently irrational to me.

2. . . . the consistent track record of Christian dogma that resulted in Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems remaining banned until 1835.

The Index was about as effective a "ban" as say the current ban on teaching skepticism to evolution in public schools and at mainstream universities. Indeed, the intentions and, so to speak, imperfect coverage effects are quite similar. Actually, that curious readers in, say the Papal States in the early nineteenth century could obtain their Galileo only by mail-order, as it were, was I think much less onerous a factor than being subject to arrest and torture if one opposed the temporal rule of the Pope.

3. One could easily find silly passages in school textbooks that give preposterous "facts" and arguments for all sorts of beliefs, including those of evolution. (On the reliance by evolution textbooks of long disproved "hoax" type examples, see Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells. Textbooks can be like that. Thus, for someone who calls himself a Christian to smirk at the creationists in particular seems to me to be unfair. That a kid's textbook uses a bad argument for a claim isn't evidence against the claim--whatever the claim is.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the original source for that quote. All the internet mentions--all on snarky anti-creationist sites, of course--appear to be referencing each other, often a bad sign.

I read this blog post this morning about Creationism being supported by the evidence of the Lochness Monster.

Since there is no real evidence that the Loch Ness Monster actually exists, that's a mighty thin thread for creationists to hang their hopes on.

"In 1976, Jonathan Wells, a student in Moon's seminary, answered his leader's call. Wells writes, "Father's {Moon's} words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." The University of California supplied Wells with his weapon, a PhD in biology and, with Icons of Evolution, Wells has fired the latest salvo in the eternal religious assault on Charles Darwin."

--from a serious scientist's review of Wells's Icons, here: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/C...

Wells is the hoax, not the scientific examples he distorts.

Does anyone beside me see the evil in this argument as an argument of fundamental belief when there is war, slavery, children dying of starvation, huge groups of displaced persons, lack of opportunity, unnecessary death from disease in the world, suppression of populations, suppression of freedom to worship, dangerously unequal distribution of goods, services, and wealth and rampant judgementalism and hatreds. These are the issues Jesus was concerned with, I can't recall one mention that we must believe in Creationism to be a good follower.

This is the way Satan corrupts Christianity. He sets up false arguments and then places them front and center in importance over the actual cares and worries of, you know, like, real people living real lives in which the furthest thing from their mind is whether the earth is 6,000 years old or not.

Show me the passage in which Jesus tells me I have to accept Genesis over Evolution in order to be a good Christian.

All I remember is that "the truth will set me free". The truth, not myth. Our eye must always and ever be on the truth. After using my very own personal truth detector, I've come to the conclusion that evolution makes a lot more sense than creationism.

Creationism is just another tool in Satan's bag of tricks designed to replace objective reality with fairy tales. Look around, we have an entire philosophical system that says reality is not objective, but what we make it. Is this the path to truth? Without a foundation based in objective truths, as objective as we can make them, we return to lives of uncertainty, stress, and fear. Pretty much where we are now without this argument to boost us along.

Creationism vs. Evolution is the Christian equivalent of the Birther movement. Another set of beliefs designed to separate the faithful and further isolate them against the greater society, increasing their sense of victimhood. Oh, yes, Satan is certainly busy among Christians today.

ETA: Victimhood places the individual front and center. Refresh my memory: what did Jesus tell John and Andrew's mother when she asked Jesus to set her sons at the head of His heavenly table? There is no place in Christianity for victimhood. It requires too much ego.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 10:14am.

6> That point would require one to believe that there is actual truth in the bible, that all conversations were transcribed verbatim, and all texts were not altered over time.

There is actual truth in the Bible, it's just deeper and more thematic than many are aware. Do you know the Bible predicted the economic mess we are in? It doesn't say on October whatever, 2008 there will be a stock market collapse. But it does say that if you ignore the plight of the orphan, the widow and the alien, if you ignore your fellow man in favor of personal wealth and power, this thing will happen to you. The Gospels are rife with stories of the rich and powerful getting their reward, while extolling the simple faith of the powerless.

How is it possible for a Christian to be a fan of Ayn Rand, the goddess of conservatism in this country? How is it possible?

I find most people who disregard the wisdom found in the Bible, read it with an agenda, rather than an open mind.

In Deuteronomy, God curses those who mistreat the orphan, the widow, and the alien within our borders. I tremble in fear each time I see someone who wants to turn aliens into second class, or no account people. God uses His curses very selectively and why He chose this particular group to protect through a curse suggests He doesn't have the same feelings against the disenfranchised and powerless that His "followers" share.

For a Christian Nation we sure as hell don't act like one. And it ain't the non-Christians I'm talking about. I find more Christianity in the hearts of many atheists than I do in many Christians.

1. "In 1976, Jonathan Wells, a student in Moon's seminary . . . " Wells is the hoax, not the scientific examples he distorts.

True. And as far as I know, he is till a Moonie. And Stephen J. Gould was a Marxist. And Thomas Edison believed that you could probably telepathically communicate with the dead, among other things. (See Martin J. Gardner's Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? Debunking Pseudoscience.) Scientists are often weird. But their arguments are independent. I think Icons of Evolution is a great book, and the Jerry Coyne review does it a grave disservice. But even if most of Well's arguments were themselves "hoaxes", his account of the misuse of Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings in school textbooks has not been refuted. Do you think that linking to an ad hominem attack by a hostile reviewer does so?

2. That point would require one to believe that there is actual truth in the bible . . .

Of course, something that you assumed in #6 when you claimed that Jesus "disavowed any interest in having a religion formed around his teachings." Where did you get that from?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 4:05pm.

"disavowed any interest in having a religion formed around his teachings", I am curious where this comes from also? My Bible says, James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. KJV

I'm assuming you mean Jesus, when you talk about someone not wishing to create a religion. Jesus is and was, always, an observant Jew. His agenda was not to bring a new religion into being, but to refresh and reinvigorate the Hebrew religion. He was a Jewish prophet, not a religious purist. There were already enough of those in His day. I think the Gospels refer to them as "the Pharisees". Oddly enough, Jesus was a Pharisee. Now Paul on the other hand set out to juxtapose "The Way" and the Hebrew religion. Paul was all about creating a separate religion.

Better watch out for the Letter of James. Luther didn't want it included in the Bible because it rather severely yokes faith and works together. Works are the children of faith. Since Jesus was all about works, I'm glad to see Luther did not prevail. It would have further corrupted Christianity in a way that would ensure its demise. After all, faith without works is dead. The Holy Spirit won that battle.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 2:17pm.

I think also that James 1:27 helps rather than hurts K.J.'s point--religion in that passage being implicitly defined as personal behavior rather than organized worship. However, there are a number of letters by Paul and others, to say nothing of Acts, that support organized Christianity explicitly and strongly. So if there was, so to speak, an organized religion rot, it started right from the Jesus' death. If true, it would follow that Jesus didn't do a very good job at choosing his Apostles or vetting his disciples.

This isn't a political group so I will let the implication of "vetting his disciples" pass with little acknowledgement.

Faith and works are yoked together, James is saying that a claim to faith can easily be just as superficial as the pharisee's were, if there is nothing to back it up.

Can you claim to be a politician if you have never held a political office. Well, yes, but you would be lying.

How many Christians claim to have faith, claim being saved, but do nothing beyond going to church on Sunday's. Some don't even do that much.

On the other hand, the Bible says not to judge. What are considered good works? Talking about God to others? Having your car parked at church where everyone else can see it? Preaching? Trying to bully others into going to church? Giving to charity? Selling off everything you own and sleeping in your car or on a park bench? How far can you go? How little does it take? Who are we to know what counts?

Rot seldom if ever appears at the beginning of organized activities. It settles in as situations change and the initial conditions of creation are no longer present. the further one gets from the initial conditions the more rot, much of it inherent (think stuff like creationism) becomes apparent. I don't think the actual rot can be traced to the beginnings of Christianity, only those things that gave rise to rot. I have no problems with what Jesus and His disciples taught, nor do I have a problem with Paul's agenda. What Acts makes clear is the Hellenistic Jews of the diaspora prevented Christianity from being preached and practiced in the synagogue leaving Paul no choice but to create his own system of churches.

The rot came later when religion and politics mixed. Religion is about the state of the soul and politics about the state of the person. Control over both gives someone an awful lot of power over the individual. One of the things I don't think the people who believe Christianity, or religion in general, should be a concern of the state are aware of is that state meddling in religious practice will kill religion. Look at Europe. If you want to continue to practice your religion, keep it out of the hands of the state. If you want freedom of religion, keep the state safe from religion. The only interaction Jesus had with the state was His death, because only the state could have carried out a human sacrifice. Beyond that Jesus had little to say about the state, except to keep religion and the state separate and out of each others realm of influence. A well ordered state will follow Christ's teachings by default. A not well ordered state will follow the ends of wealth and power, ultimately leading to corruption and destruction. Look it up!

Kings and Chronicles tell a very interesting story about religion, the state, power and wealth.

This isn't a political group so I will let the implication of "vetting his disciples" pass with little acknowledgement.

That was meant sarcastically, and directed at those who think--with little evidence--that organized religion in an of itself is a corruption of Jesus' message. I think I'm on your side on this one.

If you want to continue to practice your religion, keep it out of the hands of the state. If you want freedom of religion, keep the state safe from religion.

I think that's the standard view now, maintained by Christians of all stripes. And I pretty much agree with it. It wasn't always the standard view, of course. Though I think that connecting religion with the state, at least to a certain extent, might have been tenable during historical periods when the position and power of the state versus other institutions was different, when there was more uniformity of religious belief in certain geographical areas, or when people had a different understanding of politics and the duties and limits of the state.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 3:55pm.

Man, I forgot I started this thread. Wasn't much interest 2 months ago?

Oakes, authority of most kinds seems to grow quickly to surpress truth, the church is far from an exception in this.

The history of the church's exercise of authority seems scary to me - just the treatment of Galileo and the Inquisition are sufficient examples.

Not real sure when there was uniformity of religious beliefs. Charges of heresy and doctrinal debates started quite early. Paul himself fought hard against beliefs that he did not hold.

In another thread, one also with little interest, I asked what the impact of right belief (doctrinally) is for your faith (your humble walk.) For me, doctrinal belief of myself or of others matters little.

Good works can be as great as a life given in the service of others, Mother Theresa is the favorite example for this, although she does have her detractors. Or it can be as little as greasing the skids through life for others, not intentionally obstructing them on their own faith journey and in their interpersonal relationships. Being on the side of the orphan, widow, and alien (read the disenfranchised) when and where you can make a difference no matter how small. It does not include using other people in a cynical fashion for, what else, wealth and power. Good does not blossom from evil. It can replace evil, but it is not and cannot be, a child of evil. You shall know them by their fruits is what I heard some famous Christian philosopher say, and I don't think He was talking about the quality of the grapes, either.

It dawned on me while typing this, that a home made computer program for cataloging and keeping track of books can be a good work. If the discussion in this group or other groups can bring one soul to Christ, Librarything will have done an immeasurably good work in the life of that person and family.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 4:19pm.

The history of the church's exercise of authority seems scary to me - just the treatment of Galileo and the Inquisition are sufficient examples.

Both the Church's treatment of Galileo and the actual facts of the Inquisition are largely myths, started by Protestants and then of course adopted by anti-Christians. For some good debunking of the standard Galileo story, see the recent Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. For the Inquisition, see Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition: an Historical Revision, as well as the nice short bit in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins. (Sorry, touchstones appear to be touchy.) None of the those authors are Catholics, as far as I know. And the first book debunks the myths of all sides.

One of the reasons I brought up the Papal States is that while the alleged ferocity, injustice and evil of the Inquisition is a common anti-Catholic trope, the far worse actions of Pope Gregory XVI (1831-46) as ruler of the Papal States is for some reason much lesser known. His harsh rule--banning trains and taverns and putting tens of thousands into prison, among other things--has been commonly acknowledged, even and especially by Catholic and pro-Catholic sources. See Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes by Eamon Duffy, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: a 2,000-Year History by H. W. Crocker, and The Popes: A Concise Biographical History edited by Eric John.

I think the importance of both practice and doctrine comes through loud and clear in the words of Jesus, the New Testament as a whole and Christian tradition. Doctrine is in one sense another word for belief. And of course doctrine and belief have a direct influence on practice, both for oneself and others. Indeed, emphasizing practice assumes that particular doctrines are true. The point is presumably not merely to practice anything, after all.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 5:22pm.

Not real sure when there was uniformity of religious beliefs.

I think that's pretty much right. My point was that, at least in some sense, Church-State separation would have been understood differently in times and places where most would have identified themselves as Christians--even when they might have disagreed quite strongly over doctrine, or whatever. But it was a minor point.

12> Nostradamus predicted our past, present and future, yet I don't see anyone building scripture around him.

As for having an agenda, I was raised as a Christian, and found the hypocrisy too overwhelming. I also questioned the bible when I was a boy, because it seemed to me that blind obedience was required, by a vengeful god. This didn't sound right, to me. If he is not of love, then why follow his teachings? And, who is to say what is the word of god? Certainly not the King James version of the bible, which does not accurately resemble the original texts.

I also don't believe one has to be a Christian to honor those less fortunate: widows, orphans and aliens. One has only to study the indigenous peoples of most continents to learn that they have a bigger sense of social responsibility than any current religion. They also honored the earth and sky, as part of god, unlike the current occupants of much of the planet. To honor God, one should love and care for all inhabitants of this planet, and touch everyone and everything with love and grace. All else is just dogma - from this perspective.

KJ

I know of your fondness to Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus, which unfortunately I have not read. I have however read others of his books and introductions.

Additionally, I read Greek at a passble level. Hebrew less passable.

Please help me understand with an example of the original text that is not resembled by the King James version or any other modern translation. Help me understand your references.

Ehrman's books I have read do not seem to me to take such a strong stance as implied by the phrasing "does not accurately resemble."

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 7, 2009, 6:14pm.

25> I respectfully suggest that you get a copy of the book. It is very interesting.

I would also like to point out that I have no desire to influence anyone's point of view, or belief. In addition, I do not discount the value that some put on the bible, for their spiritual life path. However, I do not feel that it makes any sense for those who do to impose that belief on others, and use said book as an indisputable source of truth. One does not need Christianity to live an exemplary life, and one in parallel with Christ himself. I would also suggest that you read The Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East, especially number III, and do read them in order, for that is how you will gain the most from the experience. I will be most interested to learn your point of view about the Lord's Prayer included within the text.

13> I did not get that from the bible, but from my research. Many scholars have arrived at the conclusion that Jesus preached the reformation of Judaism and not the formation of any new religion.

13: The problem is that Haeckel's drawings aren't actually fraudulent but rather merely exaggerated. The conclusions Haeckel drew were seriously flawed, but the attributes shown on the drawings themsevles are all there, although for the most part not as prominent as the drawings make them. If biology textbooks used Haeckel's drawings to advocate his theories, they would be fraudulent. But they don't.

According to Wells, many of them do. And in the internet to and fro, that doesn't really seem to be disputed. What is your evidence that they don't? See Michael Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis on how odd and strange some pre-birth development, or whatever you want to call it, actually is. I've never understood why the pre-birth development process should prove evolution, or even suggest it. Or disprove it, for that matter.

>5: Isn't it funny that they named a religion after a man who disavowed any interest in having a religion formed around his teachings?

I have a little nit to pick here. The religion isn't named after Jesus of Nazareth; it's named after a title (The Christ) attributed to him. It's not his last name! It means Messiah, or The Anointed One.

30: That wasn't Haeckel's theory. Haeckel's theory was that embyoes actually go through the evolutionary process in the womb, tracing their evolutionary history as they develop from a single-cell to the final birth form, transforming from fish to mammal and so on.

What actually happens is that embryos of different species display similar characteristics in their development, which is a similar sounding idea, but substantially different. Human embryoes (for example) display gill slits early in their development not because human embyros go through a "fish stage", but rather because humans and fish use the same basic structure used to produce finished gills in fish to do different things (which is what points towards common ancestry).

I'd like to see an actual current biology textbook that teaches Haeckel's recapitulation theory. I doubt you'll find one.

Re 7, 13, 30:

Note the form of argumentation as it progresses:

First, Jonathan Wells is supposed to be an excellent source of sound scientific critique of evolution.

Second, it is pointed out that Wells's examples of flaws in evolutionary theory are mostly false.

Third, Wells actually got something more or less right (Haeckel), so (by implication) Wells must be right in general.

In fact, it remains true that almost all of Wells's factual arguments are false; there is a sizable literature of scientists showing that.

But on Haeckel he scores a talking point. The 19th century German biologist Haeckel was wrong about several things. He was a Lamarckian, i.e. he explicitly believed that acquired chararacteristics (e.g. you get a tatoo, "Live Free or Die," during your life) are inheritable by offspring (your kids could be born with that same tatoo). Dead wrong. He also produced some famous drawings of vertebrate embryos, to illustrate that vertebrates go through common stages of embryonic development before reaching their distinctive, different adult forms. These drawings were faulty in a considerable number of ways. (That was pointed out almost immediately after he published them in 1874.) So he was partly wrong on this topic.

But Haeckel was right on another fundamental point, which is that vertebrate embryos do show srikingly similar key features across species before differentiating into their adult forms. For example, in utero both you and a field mouse had pharyngeal pouches that are the precursors of gills in fish. In field mice and humans they never become gills, but the similarity of embryonic forms is consistent with all vertebrates having once had a common ancestor. Such commonality in the embryonic forms across species is highly unlikely without common descent.

Wells claims that Haeckel's faulty drawings show up in modern biology textbooks. I don't know how widespread that may be; I do not assert that it never occurs. But it is relevant only to the need to get textbooks properly updated. The fundamental point of great similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages is valid and could very usefully appear in current biology textbooks. This embryonic similarity is not proof of common descent, but it is highly compatible with that scientific conclusion, which is based on many evidences, not just this one.

So, 'Haeckel's drawings were faulty' operates as a red herring as to whether they have anything to do with any fundamental flaw in modern evolutionary theory.

Then, in post 30, we get a new red herring: Michael Denton's 1985 book. Not mentioned is that Denton has shifted away from many of the arguments and facts that he asserted in 1985. You could look at his 1998 book, Nature's Destiny, where much that he challenged in 1985 (such as common descent) he now accepts. But he is still an ID'er, so I don't think the book would be a good use of your reading time.

Bringing this all back to the original topic of this thread: With geneg, I think that it would be more useful to think as deeply as we can about what is true in the Bible (a great deal of profound ethical content, as geneg rightly emphasizes) and stop wasting effort on such useless distractions as the religiously-driven effort to overcome the truly enormous weight of scientific evidence for evolution.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 2:59am.

I'm too tired to respond tonight to the rest, but I will to these at least:

1. The problem is that Haeckel's drawings aren't actually fraudulent but rather merely exaggerated.

Here is Stephen J. Gould on the subject:

To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases—in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent—simply copied the same figure over and over again. (See “Abscheulich! (Atrocious!),” in Natural History, March 2000, p. 48.)

2. But he is still an ID'er, so I don't think the book would be a good use of your reading time.

What an obnoxious attitude towards people, arguments and books. One could say that about authors and books about evolution, or any other subject whose conclusions one might disagree with. But I wouldn't, and I don't. And I don't have a lot of respect for such a intellectual strategy--on any topic.

KJ,
I will get Ehrman's book at some point. Have always planned to do so, but right now I am reading physics and astronomy. It will be some time before I buy that book.

Please help me by providing an example of how our current texts do not resemble the original. I have read a little in textual criticism and might be able to follow your points without Ehrman's books.

The Masters of the Far East is not on my purchase list. I have never heard of the series, except with your previously expressed your fondness for it. Feel free also to comment with some of its points about the original texts.

An example or perhaps just explain a little about the history of the texts such that I can see how the resemblence was lost.

BTW, I have not seen anyone here try to impose their beliefs on you. I'm not real sure the reference for that point. I certainly will avoid any attempt at imposing my beliefs on you.

I have not read anything about Haeckel except the comments here. Are we discussing the science and scientific philosophy of a controversial 19th c biologist?

Let's rather discuss the science of say Sean Carroll's genetic research. A little more current.

" By observing how the genes changed during the course of embryonic development, scientists could track the emergence of a novel physical trait, the first step toward the creation of a new species. For the first time, researchers had direct access to the machinery of evolution and could actually watch it in the act."

With regard to the King James version of the Bible not really representing the original: at Mass this AM the Priest, in his homily, pointed out that when Genesis says we are to subdue the earth as if we are to tame it and bring it in line, apparently the understanding of many Christians, the Hebrew means something more like husband, improve upon and leave a better earth for our children. Not the same and in fact, for many Christians, this meaning would upset their smugness with regard to pollution and so forth.

Another instance is the injunction that "thou shalt not kill". In the original Hebrew it is more closely translated as "thou shalt not commit murder". Once again a major difference in meaning.

Not being any kind of Bible scholar I can't speak for any more. If any of our auditors are graduates of Hebrew School maybe they can enlighten us.

As far as evolution is concerned, one of the things I learned is that when nature finds something that works, it isn't inclined to change it unless it can no longer be sustained. Things like gills and so forth in human embryos represent a tried and true way of getting the job done. Not necessarily a recap of evolutionary history.

I am an ID'er, but not in the same sense as the ID movement. I believe God initiated the Big Bang (let there be light) and has settled Himself at the junction of existence and non-existence. At the bottom of existence, God can metaphorically twitch His nose three times and it drifts up through the levels of existence until it pops in the macro world. So was there an intelligence behind creation? You betcha. Is it a little ole guy with a long beard shooting lightening bolts from his countenance? No. God works through the mechanism He created (NOT Newton's watchmaker) to bring existence out of nothing. Science, whether it admits it or not, is a rational attempt to understand the mechanisms of God's creation. God doesn't trick us, He doesn't demand allegiance to what are obviously false ides, even if they appear in the Bible. What He demands is allegiance to the truth, whatever it may be. And we know that scientific truth is changeable. Of course the truth doesn't change, the depth of understanding changes forcing us to reassess what we thought we knew. If one takes the Bible literally and without interpretation there is no mechanism for reassessment. This is the major problem with radical Islam. Things today are just as they were 1,300 years ago, and everything is God's will. It's a religion in the throes of fatalism. Of course there are those Christians also stuck in a fatalistic universe.

Creation is a partnership between God and His creation. We both engage in acts of creation. We have the will to set direction and God makes it happen, either completely at His will, or through our manipulation of God's creation. Limiting God strictly to what we understood 2 to 4 thousand years ago represents a failure of imagination in human kind. Not a test of our belief in God. Tests of our belief in God have to do with how well we follow His will. Not in the least with regard to the orphan, the widow, and the alien. If the number of mentions means anything, He must be far more concerned with the wellbeing of the alien among us than with LGBTs (2 mentions) and abortion (zero mentions). Very early on in Genesis God asks Cain if he has seen his brother Abel. Cain's response sets the main theme of the Bible when he asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The rest of the Bible is a long, detailed examination of that question and the unequivocal answer? Yes, you are your brother's keeper.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 10:59am.

34: Here's the thing about Haeckel: saying he merely copied the same figure over and over again is difficult to back up. As a case in point - Percival Lowell was more or less contemporary with Haeckel (he founded the Lowell Observatury in 1896, and conducted his observations of Mars over the next decade and a half). Lowell drew thousands of pictures of Mars, many of which had the famous canals, which don't correspond to anything we can see now with much more powerful telescopes that take photographs of the planet. Was Lowell engaged in fraud? Or was he merely limited by the technology of the time, his memory, and his ability to draw what he remembered seeing?

Now, in at least one of his publications, he replicated the same drawing as three different species, however this was corrected in the second edition of the book by Haeckel himself. These particular drawings are never used in modern biology textbooks, so it is difficult to see how they provide any traction for the ID argument that current biology texts are somehow being deceptive.

Haeckel did clearly exaggerate elements of his drawings, but everything he drew was actually present. Haeckel's drawings and conclusions were checked, by other scientists, within a few years of his publication. ID proponents seem to think they are making some big revelation that Haeckel was wrong, and that his drawings are a problem. They aren't. They are about a hundred years late for that. Science corrects itself, as other scientists can check the data (and pretty much always do) to see if it holds up or not.

Now here's the big problem with the ID criticism of Haeckel's drawings: the drawings used in current biology textbooks are similar to, but not the same as Haeckel's drawings, having been updated for accuracy (although in many cases exaggerated for illustrative purposes). As a matter of fact, most drawings identified as being by Haeckel himself are not, but are rather updated corrected versions by other scientists. The theory being taught is not Hackel's theory, which has been clearly discredited. ID proponents, as usual, are grasping at straws. Not only that, straws which don't do anything to advance their own theory. As usual, ID proponents seem to confuse "evolution is wrong" with "ID must be correct".

ID proponents generally aren't worth reading, because they pretty much haven't provided anything to support their position that isn't completely counterfactual. Guys like Behe and Dembski, who are the "leading lights" of ID, make such fundamental errors in their basic arguments that there just doesn't seem to be much reason to go much further. ID proponents steadfastly refuse to publish in peer reviewed journals, have completely failed to find any testable evidence for their theory, and have made numerous claims that simply fall apart when subjected to any kind of scrutiny.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 10:50am.

ID proponents seem to think they are making some big revelation that Haeckel was wrong, and that his drawings are a problem. They aren't. They are about a hundred years late for that. Science corrects itself, as other scientists can check the data (and pretty much always do) to see if it holds up or not.

etc.

Well, again, here is Stephen J. Gould on the issue:

We should... not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! (again, from “Abscheulich! (Atrocious!),”)

Some examples of contemporary and near-contemporary textbooks containing such drawings have been helpfully catalogued by the Discovery Institute here

But more importantly and more generally, and with respect to the involved posters, part of this thread illustrates the sort of illogic and mischaracterization bordering on mania that often erupts whenever skepticism about evolution is expressed or even hinted at. To follow pechmerle's outline:

1. First, Jonathan Wells is supposed to be an excellent source of sound scientific critique of evolution.

That's not quite right. In #7 pointed out that one could find silly student textbook arguments for any view, and thus using the Loch ness monster example to indict creationism or creationists was a bit unfair. I referenced Jonathan Wells, without actually mentioning his chapter on Haeckel. Now, I think Icons of Evolution can be divided into those "icons" that most evolutionists would agree are or were exaggerated or outright hoaxes, and those where that would be seriously disputed to be so. The Haeckel drawings belong in the former category, as do the peppered moth experiments, Piltdown man, and a few others. Wells is in general agreement with the rest of scientific community on these, even as many evolutionists in the scientific community hurl venom at him. So you can read Gould on the misuse of the Haeckel drawings up to the present day, or Judith Hooper on the peppered moth. (See Of Moths and Men: an Evolutionary Tale: the Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth.) There is no need to agree with Wells in his general critique of evolution. Nor of course does the existence of bad or fraudulent arguments for evolution either historically or even currently disprove the theory. That in the general sense was my original point.

2. Second, it is pointed out that Wells's examples of flaws in evolutionary theory are mostly false.

No. An ad hominem attack was then made against Wells. He's a Moonie and a hoax, etc.

3. Third, Wells actually got something more or less right (Haeckel), so (by implication) Wells must be right in general.

No. I never said that. I like his book, but it certainly isn't the case that the fact that he was right about Haeckel means that he is right about other things. Why would anyone think that?

As for evolution as a theory, whatever my own feelings on the matter, there really isn't any point in trying to debate if debate is ruled out from the beginning. Skepticism towards evolution is equivalent to holocaust denial. Their books are not worth reading, etc. Fine. But the, so to speak, sociology of the whole thing interests me. You press that button--it's a bit unfair to criticize creationism for that reason, or whatever--and out comes a sort of ideological torrent featuring the full party line. A torrent which in this case completely missed the original point, and involved inventing and than attacking all sorts of claims and arguments that were never made.

40: And the Discovery Institute's analysis is basically wrong because is misses the most salient points. First off, these are not the drawings described as "fraudulent". Those were early drawings of comparisons between very early embryos that were passed off as identical, and c0rrected by Haeckel himself in subsequent editions of the book they appeared in. Second, they miss the fact that the drawings themselves reflect the reality of the embryos - everything attributed to the embryos is actually present on an actual embryo. Some elements may be exaggerated, but this is common in illustrations used in all branches of science - how many times have you seen a representation of the solar system, for example, that has all the planets spaced the correct distance apart and sized correctly?

The truly funny thing is that the drawings in the various textbooks are from Hackel's 1891 publication, which is acknowledged to be mostly correct, not his 1868 publication, which are known to be innaccurate. In other words, the Discovery Institute makes a huge deal out of the fact that Haeckel put out "fraudulent" drawings, and then doesn't cite the actual fraudulent drawings. (As an aside, it is also humorous that the Discovery Institute cites the various textbooks as showing Haeckel's drawings. In fact, the drawings in the textbooks appear to be Romanes cleaned up copy of Haeckel's drawings. Once again, poor research on the part of the Discovery Institute shows through).

The Discovery Institute then reveals either their lack of understanding, or their deceit when they attempt to argue that the textbook they explicity reference uses a recast version of Haeckel's recapitulation theory in its text. Racapitulation theory is the theory that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages during their pre-birth development, a thoroughly discredited idea. The actual current theory (which has held up when studied) is that embyos display similar characteristics as they develop because they share common ancestry, and thus they all appear similar as they go through they early development (which they do, and the drawings aren't what confirms this as the Discovery Institute seems to think, but rather actual direct observations and photographs). The drawings are merely used emphasize the similarities for illustrative purposes.

The Discovery Institute somehow thinks that saying "All vertebrate embryos closely resemble one another in early development" or "from comparative embryology, some evidence of evolutionary relationships among vertebrates. ... Adult vertebrates show great diversity, yet the very early embryos retain striking similarities" ... The early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another because they have inherited the same ancient plan for development." is a reformulation of recapitulation theory, which just shows them to be ignorant or deceitful. The simply fact is that statements like that are entirely true, whether Haeckel's drawings are used to illustrate them or not. In other words, the Discovery Institute is complaining that exaggerated drawings are being used to illustrate something that has been confirmed as being true via observation.

"Skepticism towards evolution is equivalent to holocaust denial."
No one has said that. (Nor do I think that.)

Skepticism toward evolution in general, though, does tend toward equivalence with flat-earthers. They too are still to be found, and are still publishing their "theories." E.g., http://www.geocentrism.com/gww.htm

Are they worth reading, just because they still contend they are right, they make arguments, they adduce supposed evidence? The enormous weight of the relevant science has passed them by. That will also be the fate of the ID'ers -- at least given the quality of their presentation to date.

"Debate" is not over because it was "ruled out from the beginning," but because the debate has been held -- extensively -- and ID'ers have already lost in the scientific community.

What is the significance of these drawings from 1891 to modern evolutionary science? Does any evolutionary science stand or fall on these drawings?

ETA - Does any faith stand or fall on these drawings?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 8:53pm.

The Discovery Institute then reveals either their lack of understanding, or their deceit when they attempt to argue that the textbook they explicity reference uses a recast version of Haeckel's recapitulation theory in its text. . .

The Discovery Institute somehow thinks that saying "All vertebrate embryos closely resemble one another in early development" or "from comparative embryology, some evidence of evolutionary relationships among vertebrates. ... Adult vertebrates show great diversity, yet the very early embryos retain striking similarities" ... The early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another because they have inherited the same ancient plan for development." is a reformulation of recapitulation theory, which just shows them to be ignorant or deceitful.

That claim is demonstrably false.

You are referencing the DI's discussion of the fourth textbook. (This is the fourth out of nine, so it's odd that you describe it as "the" textbook.) One line directly below the DI's textbook quotation that you cite, the DI states:

Haeckel’s recapitulation theory is not discussed.

On the other hand, in their discussion of the first textbook, the DI cites this passage:

In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.(Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, p. 416.)

Sounds like recapitulation theory to me.

I don't think you're deceitful or ignorant, but given mistakes such as above, you should take care what you say about others.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 9:27pm.

"Debate" is not over because it was "ruled out from the beginning," but because the debate has been held -- extensively -- and ID'ers have already lost in the scientific community.

Ayup.

44: Actually, it isn't demonstrably false. Their statement concerning Haeckel is not that the recapitulation theory is not discussed explicitly. Their general claim, made in the body of the text, is that modern theory (animals show similar charactirstics when in the embryonic stage) is merely a reformation of recapitulation theory. To wit:

"Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry."

The passage you cite relating to the first textbook is, once again, an entirely accurate statement of reality and the portion you cited is just a tiny bit of the quote, which goes on to show that what they are arguing isn't recapitulation theory at all:

"Embryonic development of vertebrates. Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult."

and

"The patterns of development in the vertebrate groups that evolved most recently reflect in many ways the simpler patterns occurring among earlier forms. Thus, mammalian development and bird development are elaborations of reptile development, which is an elaboration of amphibian development, and so forth"

This isn't recapitulation theory. An embryo does exhibit similar characteristics to those of its ancestors, and one would expect that if common descent is a reality. A whale embryo grows leg buds, reflecting its land-based ancestors, before those leg buds disappear in later stages of its pre-birth development. This isn't recapitulation theory. The argument in the first textbook is not that the embryo goes through the adult stages of its ancestors (which is recapitulation theory), but rather that its development seems to be layered with similaritites to the embryonic forms of animals that are "further down" on the evolutionary tree, which is demonstrably true via direct observation.

And the Discovery Institute still seems to think that the exaggerated similarities are the "key misrepresentation". They are not. Haeckel's key misrepresentation took place decades before the 1891 drawings, which are merely exaggerations. To try to claim that somehow these drawings are used as evidence for evolution is silly. The evidence for evolution is a subsequent century of direct observation of embryos by thousands of scientists that demonstrate over and over again that the similarities shown in Haeckel's drawings are actually present although less pronounced than in the drawings. The Discovery Instutute's quibbling over the use of these specific drawings is much ado about nothing - since the drawings are not being used to demonstrate something that is not true, but rather something that has been shown to be true time and time again. Embryos do show similarities during development. Making hay out of the drawings can't change this.

And this is why few people who have looked at the issue take ID proponents seriously. Their obsession over demonstrating things like this - that a handful of exaggerated drawings are used in modern textbooks - while the underlying facts of the matter support the material actually being taught (that embryos of different species display very similar attributes in their development, and embryos of many species show the markings of their evolutionary background in their pre-birth development) are on sound scientific foundation and go completely unchallenged by the IDers just shows the absolute paucity of their position.

If you want to challenge evolutionary theory and posit an alternative theory, you should at least come up with some sort of factual basis for your arguments. The ID proponents have not. They have instead quibbled over stylistic items at the margins. They have posited theories like irreducible complexity and specified complexity that have either been shown to be at odds with observed facts, or to be completely untestable (and therefore quite simply not science). ID is, in the end, basically smoke and mirrors (and, pretty much demonstrably simply a version of creationism intended to get past court review).

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 10:15pm.

31> If the title is attributed to him, is it not, then, his title, and a reference to him regarding that title would, in fact, be a proper reference to him? I fail to see the nit that was picked. Perhaps it is little.

Are you for real?

1. You claim:

Their statement concerning Haeckel is not that the recapitulation theory is not discussed, but that it isn't explicitly referenced.

Here's the "statement":

(3) Haeckel’s recapitulation theory is not discussed.

2. Here's what you say:

Their general claim, made in the body of the text, is that modern theory is merely a reformation of recapitulation theory.

Here's what they say:

(W)e are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007. Nor are we arguing that every textbook that has used Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings (or some near-identical colorized version) therefore promoted the idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” . . . Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos.

3. Here's what you say about the first passage:

The passage you cite relating to the first textbook is, once again, an entirely accurate statement of reality. It isn't recapitulation theory.

Here's your definition of recapitulation theory:

Racapitulation theory is the theory that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages during their pre-birth development . . .

Here's the passage:

In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.

So let me ask again:

Are you for real?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 10:17pm.

35> RBS - I was not referencing this discussion, when I brought up the 'imposition of beliefs.' It was a general reference to society as a whole and how the bible is portrayed as the absolute word of god, which to many of us, it is not.

For references on some differences between the original texts and the current King James bible, you need only read 37>, where geneg has provided two clear examples for you.

RE: Life and Teaching... I would refrain from offering any of the text from this series, because I believe the books should be read, and in order. To try to disseminate portions of the books without the foundation, would not, in my estimation, serve anyone.

48: Here's the thing, you don't seem to understand the difference between the two passages:

"Recapitulation theory is the theory that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages during their pre-birth development"

and

"In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors."

But I guess that's not to be unexpected, since you regard the Discovery Institute as a worthwhile source of information and they don't get the difference either.

You see, recapitulation theory is the idea that an organism reflects the adult stages of its ancestor, tracing its evolutionary history. You didn't merely share characteristics with (for example) a fish, but in early development, you became an adult fish, and then you, as the embryo, "evolved" into an adult reptile, and then an adult mammal, and then an adult primate, and then a human. What the text is saying is that one can see the embryos exhibiting similar characteristics to the embryos of its ancestry. In other words, you didn't become an adult fish, but when you were an embryo you shared similarities to an embryonic fish. This is a different statement, and neither you nor the Discovery Instuttue seem to understand that.

So let me ask you - are you truly unable to see the difference? Do you not understand that the elements in the drawings are actually present and are actually observable when embryos are viewed? That the underlying facts of the matter (embyros of different organisms share similar characteristics) are not in dispute and that the Discovery Instutute is making a big deal out of a battle that was decided 100 years ago? Are you for real?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 10:31pm.

KJ,
Then, when you state that the translations do not resemble the original texts you mean that English words do not have all the nuances of the Hebrew words they translate.

Or that an English word might have a connotation that could convey a meaning different from the precise connotations of the original Hebrew.

Do you accept the GNT as reasonably accurate wrt the original texts?

I must say that in my mind the translations do a remarkable job rendering the texts. The KJV generally seems to be quite literal. The NRSV seems to offer the best in modern Greek and Hebrew scholarship.

Some of the language renderings are difficult, and might be overly tedious in English. If you have a chance look at gospeltalk or Isaiah. I try to address language and translation issues as they come up in the passages being considered.

I have put Isaiah to bed for the winter, as far as my studies. I post fairly regularly in gospeltalk on the week's reading.

All this being said, it seems to me to be an exageration to state that the translations do not resemble the original. That is if you accept the Hebrew and Greek texts that we have today as copies of the original.

There are several LT members who can speak to this issue with much greater authority than I. Perhaps some of them might comment of the resemblences of translations to the original texts as we have them available.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 10:43pm.

48: Also, one thing to note - the Miller and Levine textbooks cited by the Discovery Instutute switched from using Haeckel's drawings to using photographs of embryos at the same stage 11 years ago. And they use them to demonstrate the same things that Haeckel's drawings were used for - that embryos at early stages of development show many similarites, and that many organisms show traces of their evolutionary history in their embryonic similarities to the embryos of their ancestors.

One wonders why the Discovery Institute, in a 2007 blog post would cite what were then 9 year old textbooks that had been superceded as representing what modern textbooks say? Especially since the more recent ones made the exact same point, but used photographs to do it. Could it be that their argument has no merit and they are essentially mining data to butress it? Naw, that couldn't be it.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 8, 2009, 11:10pm.

Crikey mate, you type a zillion words a minute, don't you?.

Why not try distilling your two points down to the essence for him, I think he can't digest as fast as you can type or something.

53: I really don't type that fast. Probably no more than 60-70 words per minute. If I had to make a living as a secretary (er, administrative assistant) I would be in real trouble.

Single point -

Intelligent Design is not science.

It isn't even Intelligent Design, or my back wouldn't hurt after footie practice.

Here's the thing, you don't seem to understand the difference between the two passages: (1) "Recapitulation theory is the theory that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages during their pre-birth development" and (2) "In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors."

There's a bit of a difference, but they are certainly consistent with each other. Of course, there would have been more of a difference had you not left out the word "adult" in (1) your own definition. A mistake, of course, if you wanted to get the standard definition right. But you made it. And so you were stuck with it. Or so you would have been, had you been more, shall we say, consistent. But you snuck it back in in the other post, without acknowledging it, of course--"You see, recapitulation theory is the idea that an organism reflects the adult stages of its ancestor, tracing its evolutionary history"--and then compared that with (2) the DI claim to show that I didn't "understand". How honorable of you.

If you use that definition, then the textbooks generally do not endorse recapitulation theory, but the DI explicitly agrees with this in their introductory remarks:

(W)e are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007. Nor are we arguing that every textbook that has used Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings (or some near-identical colorized version) therefore promoted the idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” . . . Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos.

In spite of this, you said,

Their general claim, made in the body of the text, is that modern theory is merely a reformation of recapitulation theory.

I admit that your claim confused me for bit--where did you get that, I wondered? But then I realized how you had made that mistake. In its discussion of the first textbook by Raven and Johnson, the DI quote this passage:

This entire discussion comes from a subsection entitled “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” in which the authors repudiate Haeckel’s claim but then defend a reformulated version of it: “The developmental instructions for each new form seem to have been layered on top of the previous instructions, contributing additional steps in the developmental journey. This hypothesis, promoted in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the ‘biogenetic law.’ It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenetic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors.” (pg. 1180, emphases in original)

Now, DI uses the phrase "reformulated version.". But rather than being some interpretive exaggeration, or whatever, it's clear from the text that DI is simply restating what Raven and Johnson had themselves asserted--"the biogenetic law is not literally true . . Instead . . ." That can fairly be called a reformulation, I think. And of course, it's a particular reference not a general one.

You compounded your error by confusing the first textbook with the fourth (Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life by Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart):

The Discovery Institute somehow thinks that saying "All vertebrate embryos closely resemble one another in early development" or "from comparative embryology, some evidence of evolutionary relationships among vertebrates. ... Adult vertebrates show great diversity, yet the very early embryos retain striking similarities" ... The early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another because they have inherited the same ancient plan for development." is a reformulation of recapitulation theory.

Again, that passage was from the fourth textbook, and DI said nothing about it being a reformulation of Haeckel. That last part confuses the two separate analyses of the first and the fourth. You simply got them jumbled. Perhaps it now makes even more sense that you referred to "the" textbook.

But to repeat, in any case, when you said,

Their general claim, made in the body of the text, is that modern theory is merely a reformation of recapitulation theory

you were asserting something which if you didn't initially understand it to be false, you certainly should by now.

Now, the last half of the last sentence of the first DI quote makes an independent claim: "they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos." You deny that that's true. Logically, you may be right. but many evolutionists--including Gould--would say that you're not. So, I'd say the fact that the DI takes a particular position on that--similar to Gould and others--hardly justifies your venom.

. . . since you regard the Discovery Institute as a worthwhile source of information . . .

Well, sure. And so by implication did you, at least for the purposes of the above discussion. We were looking at textbook passages and drawings, as reprinted or quoted by the DI. Are you alleging that the DI faked them? Or perhaps that they invented or cherry-picked quotes? You have put forward no evidence of that.

I think the arguments of all sides are worth reading--in their originals, and not second hand in the form of, say, hostile reviews. I also am not ready to assume that people I am skeptical of, or disagree with, are "deceitful" or that their "information" is "not worthwhile", or whatever. Unless of course, they so obviously have no interest in accurately characterizing what their opponents said, or worse, appear to want to intentionally misstate it

Then again, as previously stated, sometimes people just make mistakes. You either didn't see yours, or you did not find it in your interest to acknowledge it. I'll charitably assume the former.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 4:15am.

. I also am not ready to assume that people I am skeptical of, or disagree with, are "deceitful" or that their "information" is "not worthwhile", or whatever.

Oddly enough, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course.

I'm certainly not one to admit Creationism and Intelligent Design as properly scientific theories, but I think the US NAS statement above fluffs the issue a little. By asserting that such theories are 'typically' limited to the 'special' publications, the USNAS is only asserting that there are lots of prejudiced publications out there. While this is true, it doesn't show that all such claims appear in prejudiced publications. The statement then goes on to say that these publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in the light of new data etc. Well of course, if the statement is about the prejudiced publications then we'd expect the hypotheses to be relatively dogmatic. However it simply isn't the case that all advocates of some kind of Intelligent Design only publish in deeply prejudiced or dogmatic publications, nor is it true that Intelligent Design is not open to correction in the light of new data etc. I think the US NAS statement here has set up a straw man - the worst case scenario - and this is only going to give strength to the more rigorous supporters of intelligent design who will say that such a statement is a generalisation based on the weakest example and therefore fails to address their position. Actually advocates of Intelligent Design have adapted their position to cope with arguments to the contrary, perhaps that's why it is becoming increasingly difficult to show such advocates where they are going wrong.

I'd pretty much disagree entirely.

The USNAS is asserting that there are a lot of prejudiced publications out there. And what they are saying is that those publications that publish ID information are not scientific. ID is the worst case scenario. The debate doesn't exist in scientifice circles. The debate exists out here.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 8:13am.

If science could establish a designer, more than just evolution, a cosmic designer, how would science establish that the designer is Yahweh?

Does faith stand or fall with evolutionary science?
Does Christianity stand or fall with evolutionary science?

What does a debate over 120 year old biological drawings have to do with the truth of contemporary evolutionary science?

60>

Well we agree with respect to the first statement you chose to contend - I also interpreted USNAS as stating that there are a 'lot' ('lots') of dogmatic publications. Nor do we disagree that ID or Creationism may be the worst case scenario, you simply fail to distinguish between different ID theories - some have been adapted to try to cope with empirical data and counter-argument, some have not. Nor do I disagree that ID generally is not really science, as you will see from my first statement.

Not nearly as much disagreement as you claimed, so I disagree that we disagree entirely. I don't even disagree with the overall argument of the entire USNAS statement, but I would still argue that generalising over all ID theorists as being in accordance with the worst case is highly misleading, and it follows that many ID advocates would be right not to recognise the full body of charges that the article lays against them, therefore it probably isn't going to be very persuasive for anyone who is wavering in the light of the evidence for/against ID. The waverers can be persuaded, but that won't be achieved by presenting them with an argument against a straw man.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 8:46am.

>61

In short. Science could of course establish that there was a designer, if the evidence pointed that way, but I think we agree that the evidence does not. Could scientific evidence ever establish that God were the designer, even if evidence pointed that way? I suspect not. The physical and theoretical-physical sciences can no more establish this than they can prove whether or not God exists. The ID theorists that make use of science seem to be doing so only to defend a deeply conservative and dogmatic reading of the bible. (I use the term 'physical' sciences because outside of the Anglo-American use 'science' has a slightly different meaning, which can sometimes mean any rigorous academic discipline relating to 'facts' or possible/actual 'states of affairs'.)

I think you are right to highlight faith as the more important issue. Science isn't going to interfere with faith, nor should faith interfere with science. One can surely have faith in the existence of God without believing that God created the Earth in such a way that God can be considered a designer of all phenomena. Moreover science operates best in the absence of theological considerations, and probably has no bearing on them at all.

Personally I don't believe in God, but I don't see that there's necessarily a conflict here. The conflict only arises where, eg., Creationists try to apply science to support dogma, and where scientists use scientific procedure to argue against the existence of God.

Generally the Creationists/ID advocates seem to make this mistake, whereas most scientists do not, but some do.

Many (but not all) Anglicans, for example, have no problem accepting that evolutionary theory is probably correct and denying that God designed biological life.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 9:09am.

57: Dodge and weave all you like, but you (and the Discovery Institute) still haven't come to grips with the fundamental problem with your position: the Haeckel drawings that have been used in more recent texts are not fraudulent, merely exagerrated, that the recapitulation theory is not "reformulated" in newer textbooks (although the confusion seems to stem from the fact that the Discovery Institute seems to not understand what recapitulation theory actually is, and how modern theory differs from it), and the use of Haeckel's drawings and the biology they are used to support are sound (and in some textbooks, actual photographs of embryos are used to make the exact same point).

But you can keep arguing semantics, and how Haeckel made some fraudulent drawings (conveniently leaving out that the drawings described by those in the field as actually fraudulent are not these particular drawings), and how you don't see the difference between (1) "Recapitulation theory is the theory that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages during their pre-birth development" and (2) "In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors." They are not consistent with one another. They say very different things. You can dissemble about how I left out "adult" in my original post, and how unfair that was. Pardon me for thinking that sicne you brought up the entire issue of whether textbooks are teaching Haeckel's recpaitulation theory you might actually know what that theory is without me having to tell you. Did you not actually know anything about this theory, or is it possible that your alleged ignorance and subsequent outrage are feigned here?

Recpaitulation theory says, as I pointed out several times, that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages, morphing from fish to reptile to mammal on its path to its final form. This is because Haeckel was a Lamarckian, and thought that acquired characteristics drove evolution. Therefore, if a creature had a fish as an evolutionary ancestor, it had to be a fish at some point, as it "passed through" the stage of being a fish before the acquired characteristics of its later heritage took over and morphed it further. Modern theory says that an embryo exhibits the characteristics of the "embryos of its ancestors", which is markedly different, and a result of those embryos sharing a common ancestry and using similar initial structures for different final purposes (our gill slits, for example, partially morph into our jaw). I understand why the Discovery Instutute wants to obscure the difference, since they have an agenda that needs to be supported. I have some guesses as to why you would persist in glossing over the differences, but they would be entirely speculative.

"Well, sure. And so by implication did you, at least for the purposes of the above discussion. We were looking at textbook passages and drawings, as reprinted or quoted by the DI. Are you alleging that the DI faked them?"

I am asserting that the Discovery Institute's analysis is woefully inaccurate with respect to the science. Which is par for the course for them, since they often seem to make arguments that are shocking in either their ignorance or their dishonesty. In this case, they repeatedly gloss over the very real distinction between recapitulation theory and what these textbooks actually say, pretending that they are the same when they are not, they cite textbooks that were 9 years out of date at the time they put out this particular article that had since changed to using photographs of embryos to make the exact same point that the drawings were used for, they persist in asserting that these drawings are "fraudulent", which they are not, glossing over the fact that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings were not the ones used in the texts (and completely missing the fact that the drawings don't even appear to be the ones by Haeckel, but rather copies corrected and cleaned up by later biologists).

In other words even if we accept that everything the Discovery Institute says is in these particular textbooks is true, they still fail to make their case, since their science analysis is so clearly incorrect in easily verifiable ways. Even their attempt to defend their assertions with respect to the first textbook fall apart when you look at the quote itself, since it is not a reformulation of Haeckel's theory, but a radically different theory: "However, the biogenetic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors." Glossing over this difference is the height of dishonesty, because it attempts to discredit something which is observationally true (embryonic forms are similar to embryonic forms of a creature's evolutionary ancestors) by saying it is the same thing (a "reformulation") as something that is known to be untrue, and which has been rejected by actual science (embryonic forms reflect the forms of the creature's adult ancestors). This sort of false analogy is bad science, and bad logic, and a typical tactic for the Discovery Institute.

And it is clear that the Discovery Institute wants to make the general claim that modern biological thinking on embryonic development is merely a "reformulation" of Haeckel's theory, despite their half-hearted protests that they are not making that claim. Their "points", directly taken from their article:

"1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;

(2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;

(3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry."

Note the early language - the drawings are "recapitulations", not reproductions, not reprintings are any other word. The one word that brings to mind Haeckel's recapitulation theory. They decry the use of the drawings to demonstrate exactly what the independent data shows (that embryos display the characteristics of their embryonic ancestors), and give the implication that only these drawings provide support for this notion. They leave out, for example, the fact that photographic studies of embryos show the exact same thing. They then say "even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel's theory" (emphasis added), giving the implication that there are some that do fully endorse this theory (which there are not), and the others partially do (which they don't, but the Discovery Institute glosses over the distinctions made between recapitulation and later theories to give the impression they do). This entire section is crafted to give the impression that Haeckel's recapitulation theory is being taught via these textbooks, when it clearly is not. You can dodge and weave and dissemble, but the Discovery Institute's language here speaks for itself, and it clearly says "we are trying to make the general claim that the textbooks are just recasting recapitulation theory and teaching it". The demonstrable falsehoods here are the statements made by the Discovery Institute.

The simple fact is that until the Discovery Institute produces some actual science - testable theories rooted in actual fact, then there is simply nothing there. To date, the ID movement has not produced a single argument rooted in fact that has withstood even the slightest scrutiny. Given that the ID movement is just creationism dressed up in science sounding drag (see, for example, how int he editing process, the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People morphed from being a creationist text to an intelligent design text using essentially a word search and replace function so sloppy that in some cases "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists"; there were no other significant textual changes made to the book to alter it from a creationist work to a piece of intelligent design advocacy), that isn't surprising. Michael Behe, an intelligent design advocate, and the originator of the pretty much entirely discredited "irreducible complexity" theory has admittted that intelligent design is not testable by experiment (Behe's testimony in the Dover case included this admission: "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"; Behe also admitted that any definition of science that was broad enough to include intelligent design within its ambit was also broad enough to define atrology as science). Dembski, who created the "specified complexity" supposition has, by his own admission, been unable to come up with any test that would confirm or deny his supposition (and given the way he defined it, it seems he is unlikely ever to be able to).

Given this track record of utter science failure, plus the quote mining (often quote mining Stephen Gould no less), and the selective use of factual data, and so on and so forth, why would there be any reason to conclude that the Discovery Institue has anything worthwhile to say? I think 'deceit" is about the most charitable thing one can say about the Discovery Institute (and for the record, the Dover judge appears to have come to much the same conclusion).

Hasn't this discussion of the DI and the use of Haekel's drawings become simply that, a discussion of the DI and the use of Haekel's drawings?

The opening question with which this thread began is surely more interesting than that, broadly construed. The problem seems to me to be a much more broadly philosophical one, not resolveable by piecemeal arguments about particular evidence. It's good to have examples of particular items of controversy, so long as the discussion continues to be of sufficient value to the original issue.

One other note, the Discovery Institute's quoting of Stephen Jay Gould's condemnation of the use of the Haeckel drawings appears to be pretty selective. The quote is drawn from an article titled Abscheulich! in the March 2000 issue of Natural History, which can be found online.

Here's what Gould has to say about the drawings:

"Haeckel's forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and Huxley (by Huxley's own frank admission), in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution."

"But Haeckel also prepared his own illustrations for his technical monographs and scientific books--and here he did claim fidelity to nature, as standard practice and legitimate convention also required. Yet Haeckel's critics recognized from the start that this master naturalist, this more than competent artist, took systematic license in "improving" his specimens to make them more symmetrical or more beautiful. In particular, the gorgeous plates for his technical monograph on the taxonomy of radiolarians (intricate and delicate skeletons of single-celled planktonic organisms) often "enhanced" the actual appearances (already stunningly complex and remarkably symmetrical) by inventing structures with perfect geometric regularity."

"This practice cannot be defended in any sense, but distortions in technical monographs cause minimal damage, because they rarely receive attention from readers without enough professional knowledge to recognize the fabrications. "Improved" illustrations masquerading as accurate drawings spell much more trouble in popular books intended for general audiences lacking the expertise to separate a misleading idealization from a genuine signal from nature. And here, in depicting vertebrate embryos in several of his most popular books, Haeckel took a license that subjected him to harsh criticism in his own day and that, in a fierce brouhaha (or rather a tempest in a teapot), has resurfaced in the last two years to haunt him again and even to give some false comfort to creationists."

Note that Gould, who is being cited by Intelligent design advocates as supporting their cause, makes sure to describe the controversy here as a "tempest in a teapot" and "false comfort to creationists". It doesn't sound like he's working up to something that will actually support the Discovery Institute, does it?

"To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases--in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent --simply copied the same figure over and over again. At certain stages in early development, vertebrate embryos do look more alike, at least in gross anatomical features easily observed with the human eye, than do the adult tortoises, chickens, cows, and humans that will develop from them. But these early embryos also differ far more substantially, one from the other, than Haeckel's figures show. Moreover, Haeckel's drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start."

Hmm, they never fooled expert embyologists. Sounds like a pretty weak fraud here.

"We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"

Here's the famous quote. Okay, so Gould is lambasting the use of the drawings. What does he say later though?

"From this excellent and accurate beginning, the reassertion of Haeckel's old skulduggery soon spiraled into an abyss of careless reporting and self-serving utility. Elizabeth Pennisi's news report in the September 5, 1997, issue of Science told the story well, under an accurate headline ("Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered") and with a textual acknowledgement that Haeckel's work was first "found to be flawed more than a century ago." But the shorter squib in Britain's New Scientist of September 6, 1997, began the downward spiral by implying that 1Richardson had discovered Haeckel's misdeed for the first time.

As so often happens, this ersatz version, so eminently more newsworthy than the truth, opened the floodgates to a torrent of sensationalist (and nonsensical) assertions: a primary pillar of Darwinism, and of evolution in general, had been revealed as fraudulent after more than a century of continuous and unchallenged centrality in biological theory. If evolution rests upon such flimsy support, perhaps we should question the entire enterprise and give creationists, who have always flubbed their day in court, their day in the classroom."

Sounds promising.

Michael J. Behe, a Lehigh University biologist who has tried to resuscitate the most ancient and tired canard in the creationist arsenal (Paley's "argument from design," based on the supposed "irreducible complexity" of intricate biological structures, a claim well refuted by Darwin himself in his famous discussion of transitional forms in the evolution of complex eyes), reached the nadir in a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times (August 13, 1999), commenting on the Kansas Board of Education's decision to make instruction in evolution optional within the state's science curriculum. (In fairness, I liked Behe's general argument in this piece, for he stayed away from irrelevant religious issues and attacked the Kansas decision by saying that we would never get a chance to present his supposed refutations if students didn't study evolution at all.)

As his putatively strongest refutation of Darwinism, Behe cites the ersatz version of Richardson's work on Haeckel's drawings. (Behe discusses only two other arguments for evolution, one that he accepts as true the evolution of antibiotic resistance by several bacterial strains, the second judged as "unsupported by current evidence" the "classic" case of industrial melanism in moths, with only this third point--the tale of Haeckel's drawings--declared "downright false." So if this piece represents Behe's best shot, I doubt that creationists will receive much of a boost from their latest academic poster boy.)"

Ouch.

After a lengthy digression about how Aggasiz uncovered Haeckel's innacuracies in the 1890s and wrote about it almost immediately, Gould moves on and states:

"2. Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within.

I do not deny, however, that the notion of greater embryonic similarity, followed by increasing differentiation toward the adult stages of related forms, has continued to play an important, although scarcely defining, role in evolutionary theory--but through the later evolutionary version of another interpretation first proposed by yon Baer in his 1828 treatise. In a pre-evolutionary context, von Baer argued that development, as a universal pattern, must proceed by a process of differentiation from the general to the specific. Therefore, the most general features of all vertebrates will arise first in embryology, followed by a successive appearance of ever more specific characters of particular groups.

In other words, you can first tell that an embryo will become a vertebrate rather than an arthropod, then a mammal rather than a fish, then a carnivore rather than a rodent, and finally good old Rover rather than Ms. Tabby. Under von Baer's reading, a human embryo grows gill slits not because we evolved from an adult fish (Haeckel's recapitulatory explanation) but because all vertebrates begin their embryological lives with gills. Fish, as "primitive" vertebrates, depart least from this basic condition in their later development, whereas mammals, as most "advanced," lose their gills, and grow lungs during their maximal embryological excursion from the initial and most generalized vertebrate form.

Von Baer's law, as biologists soon christened this principle of differentiation, received an easy and obvious evolutionary interpretation from Darwin's hand. The intricacies of early development, when so many complex organs differentiate and interconnect in so short a time, allow little leeway for substantial alteration, whereas later stages, with fewer crucial connections to the central machinery of organic function, permit greater latitude for evolutionary change. (In rough analogy, you can always paint your car a different color, but you had better not mess with basic features of the internal combustion engine as your future vehicle rolls down the early stages of the assembly line.)

The evolutionary version of von Baer's law suggests that embryos may give us better clues about ancestry than adults--but not because they represent ancestral adults in miniature, as Haeckel and the recapitulationists believed. Rather, embryos indicate ancestry because generalized features of large groups offer better clues than the specialized traits of more restricted lineages can provide. In a standard example, some parasites become so anatomically degenerate as adults that they retain no distinctive traits of their larger affiliation. The adult stage of the parasitic barnacle Sacculina, for example, becomes little more than an amorphous bag of feeding and reproductive tissue within the body of its crab host. But the larval stages that must seek and penetrate a crab can hardly be distinguished from the early stages of ordinary barnacles. Darwin makes the key point succinctly when he states in Origin of Species that "community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent."

Bad news for creationists and intelligent design proponents. Gould thinks that the theory presented in the textbooks cited by the Discovery Instutite (that in their embryonic stages, animals display common characteristics with the embryonic forms of their evolutionary ancestors that belie their evolutionary heritage) is actually on sound footing. Maybe his anger at the use of the drawings isn't such a great thing to cite after all.

He goes on to argue that what is needed is more accurate representations. Like, say, photographs. these show less similarities, but that many similarities are still there.

Richardson realized that the continuing re-publication of Haeckel's fraudulent figures might be tipping our beliefs in von Baer's favor for indefensible reasons of inherited and unquestioned tradition (based on falsified drawing, to boot) rather than good observational evidence. He therefore called attention to this likely source of unrecognized bias as he marshaled several colleagues to make the basic observations that could resolve a truly open question, falsely regarded by many colleagues as an issue decided long ago, partly on the strength of Haeckel's doctored evidence."

In other words, we need better observations, and then we can draw conclusions. Now, this paper is seven years out of date, so a lot of work has been done since then. At the time, Gould wrote this:

"The early embryonic stages of vertebrates are not nearly so similar as Haeckel's phony drawings had led us to believe. For example, at the stage that Haeckel chose for maximal similarity, the number of somites (vertebral segments) of actual embryos ranges from eleven for a Puerto Rican tree frog to sixty for a blindworm (the common name for an unfamiliar group of limbless amphibians with a basically snakelike adult form). Moreover, although Haeckel drew his embryos as identical in both size and form, actual vertebrate embryos at their stage of maximal anatomical similarity span a tenfold range in body size."

Which illustrates that Haeckel's drawings exagerrated the similarities. However, Richardson himself (the originator of the current broohaha, and the man cited by Gould as studying the issue) argued in a later published piece that Haeckel's drawings were not fraudulent, were schematic in nature, mostly accurate albeit exagerrated, and for the most part the idea of similar embryonic development was well-supported by the evidence.

See: http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departme...

Note that this clarifying paper, with the Discovery Institute doesn't feel the need to bother with citing, was published two years after Gould's Natural History piece, and five years before the Discovery Institute's own article. Hmm, I wonder why they didn't reference this pretty much contradictory and much more comprehensive paper?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 10:54am.

>richardbsmith

Maybe you ought to start a new thread!

:)

Or maybe those who wish to continue this discussion should write a book.

I think they already posted one.

Which brings to mind a question of ownership of posts. If Tim, or the LT staff, decide to produce a book of posts from LT, how would that work?

Personally, I have no problem with this, and have no illusions that I might be included, but I'm sure there are those who would be jealous of their intellectual property and might want to be sure it was all done ship shape and Bristol fashion.

But what would be the issues with this? I guess I should ask for responses in a different thread. Or maybe Tim, if he's there might address this elsewhere, just let me know where.

You're having a conversation with yourself, StormRaven, about the Discovery Institute in general and ID as a whole. Initially you inacurately reported its views, and when called on it, you threw dust, upped the insults on them, and now have started to throw insults at me, dishonest insults, I should add.

You can dissemble about how I left out "adult" in my original post . . .

Dissemble? But you did leave it out. Perhaps you don't think it's important. I do. But regardless, it is perfectly accurate to say that you didn't use the word.

So where do you get off, calling me a liar?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 12:43pm.

Time to put my own thread to ignore.

72: Except you did dissemble, especially about the actual nature of the conversation. You see, dissemble means "give a false or misleading appearance", which you did. You made a big deal out of leaving out "adult" in the original post, when in fact, leaving it out doesn't make a bit of difference unless you are now conceding that prior to this thread you really were ignorant as to what "recapitulation theory" was. Which amazes me that you would go out and try to argue this as some sort of failing on the part of biology textbooks if you didn't even know what it was. It seems much more plausible that you actually did know, and were simply trying to score some sort of internet post point by making hay about it, or, in other words, dissembling. I'll let you decide whether you were being misleading, or simply unknowledgeable on the subject you brought up.

The real issue here is that your efforts to say I said something inaccurate about the Discovery Institute (or you) have amounted to nothing. The Discovery Institute lied about the conclusions the textbooks drew from the pictures. Misstated current embryonic similarity theory as being merely a reformulation of recapitulation theory, and seemed not to understand what recapitulation theory is. Cited the wrong pictures as being fraudulent. Quote mined a Gould 2000 article for one line that seems to support their position, when in fact, he said that the kinds of positions they later took in their 2007 article are nonsense, and the people who take those sorts of positions don't know what they are talking about. The Discovery Institute took ten years following Richardson's original article about the Haeckel drawings to publish their own web article - that's being on the ball there too. The Discovery Institute, in their "3 points" that I cited before gave an entirely misleading account of what the textbooks showed.

I note that you haven't bothered to address any of this. Instead, you make a big deal out of the ommission of the word "adult". You haven't bothered to address the fact that the drawings are merely exaggerations. You haven't bothered to address the fact that the photographic evidence supports embryonic similarity. You haven't bothered to address the misleading nature of the language in the Discovery Institute's "3 points". You haven't bothered to address the fact that the Discovery Institute cited textbooks a decade out of date that use photographic evidence to prove the same point. You haven't bothered to address the fact that the Discovery Institute's apparent lack of understanding of what recapitulation theory actually is, and how it is different from what the textbooks actually say. And on and on.

Instead you make a big deal of the fact that I left out the word "adult". And get indignant that I said you were dissembling. Perhaps if you addressed the actual issues at hand here, then you might avoid such criticisms. Of course, that would be difficult, since you would have to confront the fact that the Discovery Institute got these issues wrong right down the line. In effect, you would have to defend the indefensible. So instead you harp on a one word ommision that only matters if you are ignorant of the subject being discussed.

I haven't heaped insults upon the Discovery Institute. I have accurately discussed their stances, their positions, and their utter failure to provide any kind of science at all in support of their position. Every time their members have published something that purports to show that ID is correct, it has been dismantled by actual working scientists in short order. Every time they have gone into court, they have gotten their heads handed to them, with the courts conclusively coming down on the side of the Discovery Institute not even advocating science. They have dressed up creationism in the most clumsy way possible (badly edited word search replacements no less), and tried to call it science. It is laughable that anyone takes them seriously.

In the end though, the question is this: did you dissemble about the importance of leaving out "adult form" in my original post, or were you simply completely ignorant as to the nature of the subject you chose to make an argument about? Either you were being deceptive, or you didn't have a clue on the subject. Which is it?

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 12:47pm.

I'm out as well.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 9, 2009, 5:36pm.

Wow.

And here was me being SO CAREFUL not to derail the thread with some personal opinion.

Like, "Science has nothing at all to say to Religion*, as one is rational and subject to proof, and the other irrational and dependent on faith".

*Except on the occasions religious clowns try to call their faith a "science", and then Science should limit itself to a dignified raspberry. :P

I prefer thinking of it as, physics is to science as religion is to metaphysics. They deal with two different aspects of life.

metaphysics . . . that is the stuff you believe that you know is not true, right?.

You are right though, science and religion are two different aspects of life.

Science is the explication and measuring of those aspects of life that are real, and religion, those aspects of life found in human superstitions that gradually are fading away, and one day science will find a permanent cure for.

>71: The LT ToS/Privacy section -- found at the bottom of very page -- answers your question about LT's ability to republish your/our posts:

"Please note that we do NOT assert copyright over the things you post to LibraryThing, and that the "non-exclusive" above means you can post your content elsewhere. By posting to LibraryThing you let us use, but you do not restrict what you can do with it. We love it when people post their reviews on their blog, on Amazon and other sites!"

So, yes, LT can use what you are posting (except personal identifiers), but that does not limit you from republishing what your posting here (either in print or electronically). As I read it.

Thanks, for that pechmerle.

Annodyne said, among other things, "and one day science will find a permanent cure for (religion)."

I wouldn't hold my breath. Many religious people can't imagine a life without their religious beliefs. Sorta like a man can't imagine life as a woman. We're born that way.

I have a family member who is a serious drug addict, and yes, she was born that way, or at least with the genetic weakness predisposing her to it. It is bad for her to be a drug addict, she looks at the world the wrong way, believes things that are patently false, all because of this fault in her makeup.
And the day may come when science has a cure for the solace she finds in her weakness. She, and the other drug addicts will probably be grumpy when science takes their crutch away and forces them to confront reality.

It will be right for us to force the cure on them though. Even if it pains or even damages them.

So too religion.

A question: You aren't a member of the group Christianity, yet you appear to enjoy posting on the group with the frequent jibe--as in religion is like a disease, and people should be forcibly cured of it. Is that a bit like a foreigner claiming that Americans have an obsession with cover-ups--on a thread dedicated to mourning the death of fellow American soldiers? Just asking.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 2:00am.

Someone mentioned before about me not being a member of such and such a group. Is it compulsory . . . it doesn't seem so, or I wouldn't be able to read them or post to them, I am guessing.
So, is this just some nit-picking by you as a way of getting at someone . . yes, it would seem so.

Why I initially posted here was nothing to do with Christianity, It was because, looking at the grouping of posts under "All Posts" I saw the word Science in the topic title, then read this statement in the OP
"What does a faith system have to do with scientific discovery and the teaching of science?

A faith system that requires adherence to doctrines that are contrary to the discoveries of the sciences seems to me to be a misplaced faith, one that must fail in its pursuit of truth".

And agreed whole heartedly with the OPer and so read on through the thread.

I wasn't talking to you, I was answering, and quite sincerely and seriously answering with my opinion on the topic, someone else. Who made a comment to me, probably equally sincerely and seriously. So, why don't you fold your passive aggressive "question" up till it is all sharp corners, and take it away?.

Because I am a Christian, and don't particularly like it when the haters come in and equate Christianity with a disease. And if you think my question was even partially "passive", then you don't know me very well.

78>

Annodyne:

"Science is the explication and measuring of those aspects of life that are real".

I'm not necessarily objecting (although I might), but are you aware that in stating that science is about 'those aspects of life that are real' you are engaging in metaphysics? Just wondered, because I wasn't sure whether you were objecting to metaphysics generally or not. If you were, then you seem to be engaged in a contradiction.

As I say, it's not an objection, but you might clarify what you mean.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 8:43am.

82> Actually, it could be read that he is suggesting that religion views those outside of their belief system(s) as able to be and should be 'cured,' 'even if it pains or even damages them.'

As for cover ups, it would appear that the American government is rather good at it, and no offense is intended to those who live there. It might be perceived by some that posting such a statement on a site of mourning those lost would be appropriate, so that the lives of other young men and women would not be lost for false wars and the greed of old men and women. Perhaps that is why the country is in its current state, which is rippling throughout the world.

If he is just 'making jibes' then you could choose to ignore him, and if he is actually challenging beliefs with pertinent questions to learn more about the beliefs of others, then it might be beneficial to all to engage him. With an open mind, it can be educational for everyone.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 8:41am.

Sorry for the confusion. This was a follow on to your statement that if Annodyne ...is actually challenging beliefs with pertinent questions to learn....

If he wants to learn, he should start with the basicsL he should read the Bible. (I know, I know, you've read it six times cover to cover.) If you've read it, you must not have been paying attention, and if that's the case, then read it again, as you would a very dense, tightly packed work, pay attention. You might find t doesn't say half the stuff that is attributed to it, and half of it is routinely ignored by religionists because it doesn't fortify their worldview.

Read the Bible, you might be surprised.

Jesus tells us in several places that some people will recognize Him and others won't. (This sounds like Calvinism, but it's not as exclusive a view.) I have been chased by God all my life. I finally just gave up and let Him catch me.

I don't appreciate being compared to a drug addict. It just shows the deep, deep level of ignorance on your part about religion. I haven't seen such an ignorantly arrogant statement since George W. Bush left office.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 11:46am.

87> Perhaps you should tag your responses so that we might know to whom they are addressed. Not knowing which parts are in reference to my posting, I will address your first statement, and leave the 'drug addict' portion for someone else.

I have read the bible, having been raised as a 'christian,' and when I found it lacking - for me - I turned to Buddhism, and found that chanting words the meaning about which I was in total ignorance made little sense. As for having read the bible and 'not been paying attention,' one could find that statement 'ignorantly arrogant,' as do I. I paid close attention, for I had big questions for the bible, and found little solace within its pages. Does this mean I am an atheist? Nope. Does it mean I do not believe in the life of Christ? Nope. Does it mean that I do not need a book or religion to lead an exemplary life and to communicate with God? Yep.

However, this should not preclude me or like-minded folk from participating in discussions of this sort. If we cannot discuss differences of opinion, then how will we ever understand each other? And who is to say that the bible is the book of truth? Voltaire might have said it best:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

My experience of God is that he was with me all along, even when I cursed his existence, and he has an incredible sense of humour. Once again, I will rely on Voltaire:

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

I tend to agree with him.

One thing I think is critical in a discussion about religion and science (concerning primarily evolution, since most religions take no position on things like the theory of gravity or atomic theory) is that literal creationism, and its bastard offspring intelligent design are decidedly minority viewpoints even among the religious. They (or some variant of these ideas) are certainly only espoused as official dogmas by a tiny minority of Christian sects.

For example, the Catholic church's official position is that evolution and faith are not in conflict. Whether evolution is true is held to be independent of religious matters, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Catholic schools teach evolution in their biology classes. The Anglican, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches take similar positions. Several sects take a position similar to the United Methodist Church, which takes no position explicitly on evolution, but makes this general statement concerning science:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues."

Any reasonable reading of this statement, in my opinion, clearly shows that UMC sees no conflict between faith and science. The Presbyterian Church says, "(w)e conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction."

In short, even among the religious, the view that science and faith are in conflict is a minority position, and only espoused as official dogma by a small number of fundamentalist groups.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 11:39am.

Well said SR.

(No wait, I can't be agreeing with you...)

#87
I am very sorry to think you saw me as comparing you to a drug addict. That wasn't at all my intention you know. Especially as the drug addict in question is a bad egg, willfully a drug addict, and you seem a nice bloke.

I mean, all humans are human, so someone could stretch any statement about one group to compare it to another. I wasn't comparing religion to drugs, except in as far as they both have genetic dispositions in human populations.

And yes, I did answer one aspect of your statement with an analogy, but that was just because I find it better than, (what to me seems an impertinence) referring to some aspect of the individual I am talking to. lol. Believe it or not I was trying to address your comment without being too offensive. Sorry for the obvious fail, it wasn't intentional.

You said "Many religious people can't imagine a life without their religious beliefs. . . We're born that way" and I could have pointed out my opinion ( backed by scientific research I do believe ) that yes you were, in fact, possibly born predisposed to religious belief.

And that it is just a mistaken side effect of the parts of human evolution that granted us the evolutionarily successful abilities to (a) detect patterns from sensory information overload (b) construct elaborate theories as a way of dealing with complexity (c) fit into humankind's extremely elaborate social structure and relationships.
No animal but man has a god. So the fault is in man, not reality. No animal but man is a drug addict, so the fault is in man, not reality.

Two separate faults, and given the amount of harm they cause to society, to me it is obvious that sciences duty is to provide a cure to the genetic predisposition to these , and other diseases.

I just want to point out I said nothing at all about religious belief that might be held one day, by people cured of the genetic fault, held for unimpaired personal conviction. That won't be problem in my opinion, because it will stand and spread or otherwise, on its merits. The present case is of people weakened by a genetic fault, ( maybe fault is too harsh a word, has too minatory a feeling. I don't mean it as an attack or even an observation on any particular religious person, just the whole of the problem. ) helplessly falling victim to a mental meme that, using the side-effect of evolution that I indicated, preys ( prays? ;) ) on humans.

That is why I used the analogy I did. Some people, exposed to drugs, helplessly become addicts, others, not as predisposed because of the genetic lottery, don't, and I guess some choose addiction anyway. Of course we don't blame the people who fall, any more than we could praise the people who don't. And of course, come the day we can address the root cause, we ought to. It will be our duty, and for the good of humanity.

People will still be able to choose to use drugs, or believe.

One good thing is, pushers won't be able to target children as effectively, and if children do start on drugs, when they grow a little, they are far more likely to be able to throw off the habit without harm.

So too religion, see?.

Oh, and I have read the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Guru Granth Sahib ( the winner as far as social guides, imo ) and probably other religious works over the years. I didn't get too far into the Hindu text, too confusing by far, i gave it up I am afraid.

One I liked from the Bible and the Torah, was Elisha.

And he Elisha went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up that way, there came forth little children of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; Go up, thou bald head.

24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare forty and two children of them.

And you are right, it surprised me.

All of those books are just the pure expression of humans' evolutionarily successful ability to detect patterns from minimal information, most times the slight movement and noise we detected wasn't a tiger prowling outside the cave mouth. ALL of the time it wasn't the God of Tigers prowling outside the cave mouth.

85.

Well, that is an interesting opinion you have about what I was doing. You could clarify it for me somewhat, and I would be interested to read it. For one thing, it was just a throwaway line I made on a website, I am pretty sure it was no exhaustive definition of "What science is". I wonder even if it wasn't just slightly WRONG, mate. :)
I am not saying that I WASN'T unintentionally doing metaphysics, you understand. I don't hold out to have a complete understanding of metaphysics. ;) So maybe under some school of metaphysics I was making a doctrinaire statement.

I am saying however, that as metaphysics has no base in observable fact, and basically is "Anything its proponents care to claim it is", and more even, its proponents don't agree on anything ( or at least as far as my limited understanding is aware, they don't ) it isn't real at all, and has nothing to do with science. Just word games.

Can't be measured = meta, right?.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 7:17pm.

89

Yes, I see what you are saying, and most of the backing for creationism is minorities, true.

What I don't see is, how can the theory of evolution not completely contradict the bible, and every other "Word of god". It just completely contradicts the bible as the unquestioned received word of god, for one thing.

94: Most people are not Biblical literalists. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Figures such as Augustine and Aquinas wrote about the allegorical nature of Genesis, and the dangers of treating it as literal fact.

It's well worth remembering that for many centuries, ordinary Christians did not read the Bible at all. Most of them couldn't read, and (in the West) the Bible was in Latin, a language they didn't even speak.

The religion was learned from the priests and bishops, orally.

A fascinating look at how that world looked to ordinary people can be found in Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics . . . 1294-1324. The book contains substantial material that is the direct testimony of individual villagers. They were examined by a bishop on their beliefs, who preserved transcripts. The bishop (Jacques Fournier) later became pope, and so the transcripts still exist in the Vatican library. The poignant part is the villagers were being examined as to whether, and to what extent, they were involved in heresy (Catharism). A significant number of the people examined ended up burned at the stake.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 10, 2009, 8:54pm.

95

Yes, I knew that some significant religious people have pointed up the allegorical aspects of parts of the bible.

I don't think any claimed the Annunciation or the Ascension were though, and they clearly never said that the parts where god spoke directly to people and gave them directions to follow certain rules, smite their enemies, kill their children, build arks and fill them with two of every beast that was or would be, or lead their people were either.

Yet clearly ( to the scientific mind ) none of these events actually happened. Unless you "Have faith" that they did. But the bible, claiming to be the word of god, says they did.

Now the church, in the face of the obvious and overwhelming truth of the evolutionary record, retreats from its "Doubt word one of the bible and we will tie you to a stick and burn you to death" rule and says "Sure, part of the bible is a sort of joking story to explain stuff to you dummies".

Could it be that the entirety of the bible is just that?. An allegory by sheep herding tribes 2000 and more ago, to explain a world they just wandered around lost in?.

97: Did you not see the part where Augustine and Aquinas took the Genesis story as allegorical? Do you seriously think that they did so because of the discovery of evolution? That would have been hard to do given that they both died long before evolution was even a glimmer of a thought in anyone's head. Maybe it is more likely they did so because they thought it was the correct interpetation of the document?

>97 And we still wander around this world, lost, to some extent.

One can be a "believer" and accept evolution, without any cognitive dissonance. Metaphors, anyone?

>100-104

That was annoying - something weird happened with my connection, so when I refreshed the page I just kept posting the same message again and again.

Sorry for the mess!

99>

Cognitive dissonance. I haven't a metaphor, but a poor analogy. Having proof-read a book or essay, presented with any given page I may believe that there are no longer any mistakes on it. However, presented with the whole book I might believe that there is a mistake somewhere, on at least one of those same pages. I'm not sure whether that's analogous to the evolution/faith position, that there's some incommensurability between taking science as a whole and taking it piecemeal, but I always liked it as an example of plausibly holding apparently contradictory beliefs.

93> Fair enough. You don't know much about metaphysics nor what 'meta' means. It might have been clearer when speaking about the physical sciences to say that they necessarily involve the study and explanation of actual and possible observable events, rather than to say that they are 'real' or about 'reality', which is a different sort of claim.

Philosophical metaphysics (as opposed to mysticism) is answerable to everyday phenomena too.

Theoretical physics sometimes sits astride both physics proper and metaphysics, e.g. quantum physics.

Missatge modificat pel seu autor, nov. 11, 2009, 2:31pm.