|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2009 : 12:39:54
|
Cornelius, if you don't slow it down a bit, you're gonna break something. The human wrist did not evolve to withstand such vigorous flapping at their outer ends.
The Evolutionist is "Shocked, Shocked to Find Religion in Here"
Religious doctrinaire PZ Myers now incredibly claims there is no religion in evolution. After seeing Paul Nelson and Ronald Numbers discuss the issue, Myers reveals he is deeply in denial:
|
There follows a carefully mined and highlighted quote from PZ:
| The argument from biological imperfections is not theological, no matter how vociferously Nelson asserts that it is, because no biologist is simply saying what he claims they are; the interesting part about imperfections like the recurrent laryngeal nerve or the spine of bipeds or mammalian testicles isn't simply that they seem clumsy and broken in a way no sensible god would tolerate, but that evolution provides an explanation for why they are so. We can build a case that these structures are a product of historical antecedents, and have a positive case for them as consequences of common descent. Nelson is misrepresenting the argument, and Numbers just went along with it. |
And here is the Myers quote in context and sans silly highlighting:
His example was to talk about the argument from imperfections, the fact that many of the points Coyne made as evidence of evolution were from sub-optimal adaptations, or historical relics. Nelson has made this argument many times before; he says that it is an attempt to judge what a rational god would do, finding differences from our expectations, and then using those to argue against religion…a purely theological plan and conclusion.
Numbers chimed in to agree vigorously, pointing out that imperfections are no argument against creationism, because creationists believe in a flawed world as a consequence of the Fall. I know this. It is irrelevant.
The argument from biological imperfections is not theological, no matter how vociferously Nelson asserts that it is, because no biologist is simply saying what he claims they are; the interesting part about imperfections like the recurrent laryngeal nerve or the spine of bipeds or mammalian testicles isn't simply that they seem clumsy and broken in a way no sensible god would tolerate, but that evolution provides an explanation for why they are so. We can build a case that these structures are a product of historical antecedents, and have a positive case for them as consequences of common descent. Nelson is misrepresenting the argument, and Numbers just went along with it.
Then, of course, talking about Coyne leads into some Dawkins-bashing. Coyne and Dawkins are going beyond the conventional boundaries of science, Numbers says, and he doesn't like theological conclusions being made from empirical work; evolutionary biology doesn't and can't tell us much of anything about god.
Bullshit.
When you've got a specific theological claim, such as that the earth is only 6,000 years old (or, in Nelson's uselessly blurry version, is simply much younger than geology says), then science certainly can weigh in on a theological claim. It can say that that specific claim is wrong. We can whittle away at virtually every material claim that religions make, and reduce them to an empirical void — the Catholic Church, for instance, officially goes along with the scientific observations of evolution, and simply adds an untestable, immaterial claim on top of it, that there was some moment of "ensoulment" that corresponds to the literary metaphor of Adam and Eve. Science can't disprove that, but what it means is that they are diminished to making pointless claims about invisible, unobservable entities being magically added invisibly and immaterially to people at a distant time and place that they cannot name.
|
Link. This link was provided by Corneilus, but I'm putting it up again, anyway.
Continuing on:
It is not news that people live in denial of their own commitments and convictions. But the degree to which evolutionists are in denial is remarkable. The metaphysics embedded in their thought is exceeded only by their denial of it. It is a truly fascinating mythology.
The reason given by evolutionists such as Myers for why their theological proclamations don't count is that "evolution provides an explanation for" the imperfections. This reasoning is so problematic it seems unnecessary to rebuke. Can evolutionists really be serious? Unfortunately they are, so here goes. |
And indeed, off he goes. What it all 'stills off to is the tired, old wheeze that the Theory of Evolution is yet another religion, and we've all heard and debunked that turkey before. 
Evolution is not a religion; it is a scientific theory, a theory being the strongest statement made in the sciences. It has been rigorously tried and proven beyond any reasonable doubt and it gains more evidential support almost daily. To call it a religion, as is done on a regular basis by Creationist blatherskites, is grasping at the flimsiest of rhetorical straws from a sinking ideology.
But, of course, if Cornelius, or anyone, would like to come in here and tell us all about it, enlighten us, as it were, I'm sure he, or she, would find a most receptive audience. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 13:02:09 [Permalink]
|
How about we ask PZ Myers and Cornelius Hunter to formally debate these issues here in print?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2009 : 15:12:46 [Permalink]
|
Wow! I spent a few minutes reading a few of Corny's posts, and now I have a serious brainache (I owe you filthy!). His M.O. seems to be to post some quotes that don't really support his contention, and then claim that somehow they do. Even the ones that sort of, somehow, kind of, tangentially, maybe, almost support his position are not that surprising. Who would be shocked to find out that the scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries were theists? And that they struggled to reconcile something they believed to be true all their lives with what new evidence and ways of thinking were telling them?
But the goofiest part is, and what I never have understood, is why a theist would try to undermine a scientific theory by calling it a religion. I mean, aren't they the ones that believe religion is a good thing? I suppose the are trying to even the playing field by trying to drag the side of reason down into the muck of ignorance, but they don't even realize that their efforts are as good as an admission that they have no valid position or argument. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 16:16:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Wow! I spent a few minutes reading a few of Corny's posts, and now I have a serious brainache (I owe you filthy!). His M.O. seems to be to post some quotes that don't really support his contention, and then claim that somehow they do. Even the ones that sort of, somehow, kind of, tangentially, maybe, almost support his position are not that surprising. Who would be shocked to find out that the scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries were theists? And that they struggled to reconcile something they believed to be true all their lives with what new evidence and ways of thinking were telling them? |
This latest one is quite funny. Corny is saying that because some people long ago sought to use sub-optimal design to argue against a religious position, any explanation of sub-optimal design is therefore a religious argument. An analogous argument would be that anyone who uses the "N word" is a Klansman, because Klansmen use the "N word."| But the goofiest part is, and what I never have understood, is why a theist would try to undermine a scientific theory by calling it a religion. I mean, aren't they the ones that believe religion is a good thing? I suppose the are trying to even the playing field by trying to drag the side of reason down into the muck of ignorance, but they don't even realize that their efforts are as good as an admission that they have no valid position or argument. |
It's a legal strategy: get enough people to believe that evolution is religious, and eventually it will be illegal to teach it in state-run schools. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 17:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Wow! I spent a few minutes reading a few of Corny's posts, and now I have a serious brainache (I owe you filthy!). His M.O. seems to be to post some quotes that don't really support his contention, and then claim that somehow they do. Even the ones that sort of, somehow, kind of, tangentially, maybe, almost support his position are not that surprising. Who would be shocked to find out that the scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries were theists? And that they struggled to reconcile something they believed to be true all their lives with what new evidence and ways of thinking were telling them? |
This latest one is quite funny. Corny is saying that because some people long ago sought to use sub-optimal design to argue against a religious position, any explanation of sub-optimal design is therefore a religious argument. An analogous argument would be that anyone who uses the "N word" is a Klansman, because Klansmen use the "N word."| But the goofiest part is, and what I never have understood, is why a theist would try to undermine a scientific theory by calling it a religion. I mean, aren't they the ones that believe religion is a good thing? I suppose the are trying to even the playing field by trying to drag the side of reason down into the muck of ignorance, but they don't even realize that their efforts are as good as an admission that they have no valid position or argument. |
It's a legal strategy: get enough people to believe that evolution is religious, and eventually it will be illegal to teach it in state-run schools.
|
That's something I hadn't thought of. Won't work, though; they'll never get it through the courts where Argumentum ad populum ain't hittin' on shit. That only works in church and FOX Nooz.
Cornelius is a trip, isn't he? I've only read a couple of his scratchings, but after this last, I think he would be happier writing humor. He's so easy to take down, it's no fun.
But at least, he's a break from O'Leary.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 17:22:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's a legal strategy: get enough people to believe that evolution is religious, and eventually it will be illegal to teach it in state-run schools. |
True.
I like to think it's also simply a case of projection. Deep in their dark, putative souls, the Creos know that they are evil, lying religionists, so they accuse their opposition of being the worst thing they are familiar with.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2009 : 17:24:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
How about we ask PZ Myers and Cornelius Hunter to formally debate these issues here in print?
|
No, no, no! I want him! Won't get him, of course, nor will anyone beyond the safety of biased moderation, but we can dream....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 18:32:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]It's a legal strategy: get enough people to believe that evolution is religious, and eventually it will be illegal to teach it in state-run schools.
|
Good luck to them with that strategy! Besides, old Cornball here doesn't seem to be nearly smart enough to pull it off.
 |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 20:56:14 [Permalink]
|
He doesn't seem to allow comments on his blog posts. Effing coward. Unlike the "religious" PZ Myers and everyone else he criticizes for being dogmatic, they at least allow criticism.
So, without comments, one can't show him how he's been misquoting Myers.
Typical.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 21:31:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
He doesn't seem to allow comments on his blog posts. Effing coward.
...
So, without comments, one can't show him how he's been misquoting Myers. |
Oh, don't worry, he knows. That's why he allows no debate.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Wavin' them hands!
