Another quote from Dawkins.
"More sinister than the artless Lord Privy Seals, and the self-indulgent and 
wholly illicit playing of the Nazi trump card, the film goes shamelessly for 
cheap laughs at the expense of scientists and scholars who are making honest 
attempts to explain difficult points. Cheap laughs that could only be raised 
in an audience of scientific ignoramuses (and here Mathis' propaganda 
instincts cannot be faulted: he certainly knows his target audience). One 
example is the treatment of the philosopher Michael Ruse: a decent man, 
bluff, bearded, articulate, and with a genuine and sincere desire to explain 
difficult ideas clearly. Stein asked Ruse how life originated. Ruse's 
immediate impulse (as mine would have been) was to launch into an honest 
effort to explain a difficult scientific idea. He began by saying that he 
doesn't know how life originated, and nor does anybody else. At this point 
in his interview, Ruse probably had no notion that his interlocuter had a 
completely different agenda to promote, with no hint of sincerity to balance 
his own. Ruse patiently explained that the origin of life (nothing to do 
with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary precursor of Darwinian 
evolution) is an interesting and unsolved mystery, one that scientists are 
actively working on. By way of example, Ruse could have chosen any of a 
number of current theories. He chose just one (it would have taken too long 
to explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of properties 
such a theory must have. He happened to choose the theory proposed by the 
Scottish chemist Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded by a 
strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns on the surfaces of 
crystals in inorganic clays. At no time did Ruse say he believed the 
Cairns-Smith theory, only that it was the KIND of theory that scientists are 
actively examining, as a CANDIDATE for the origin of evolution. Stein just 
loved it. Mud! MUD! The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable. 
Maybe this was when Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at 
this point that he started to show signs of exasperation, although he may 
still have thought that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a 
malevolent and clandestine agenda. Stein kept returning, throughout the 
film, to the phrase "on the backs of crystals", and the sycophantic audience 
in the Minneapolis cinema dutifully tittered every time."
--------------------------

Creationists lampoon a theory saying life could have come from 'mud', but 
what is their alternative? According to the Bible the first man was made 
from soil. So if they think 'mud' is silly then surely they are saying the 
Bible's account is ridiculous?

Steve M

On Apr 27, 2:49 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> Another quote from Dawkins.
> "More sinister than the artless Lord Privy Seals, and the self-indulgent and
> wholly illicit playing of the Nazi trump card, the film goes shamelessly for
> cheap laughs at the expense of scientists and scholars who are making honest
> attempts to explain difficult points. Cheap laughs that could only be raised
> in an audience of scientific ignoramuses (and here Mathis' propaganda
> instincts cannot be faulted: he certainly knows his target audience). One
> example is the treatment of the philosopher Michael Ruse: a decent man,
> bluff, bearded, articulate, and with a genuine and sincere desire to explain
> difficult ideas clearly. Stein asked Ruse how life originated. Ruse's
> immediate impulse (as mine would have been) was to launch into an honest
> effort to explain a difficult scientific idea. He began by saying that he
> doesn't know how life originated, and nor does anybody else. At this point> in his interview, Ruse probably had no notion that his interlocuter had a
> completely different agenda to promote, with no hint of sincerity to balance
> his own. Ruse patiently explained that the origin of life (nothing to do
> with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary precursor of Darwinian
> evolution) is an interesting and unsolved mystery, one that scientists are> actively working on. By way of example, Ruse could have chosen any of a
> number of current theories. He chose just one (it would have taken too long
> to explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of properties
> such a theory must have. He happened to choose the theory proposed by the
> Scottish chemist Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded by a
> strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns on the surfaces of
> crystals in inorganic clays. At no time did Ruse say he believed the
> Cairns-Smith theory, only that it was the KIND of theory that scientists are
> actively examining, as a CANDIDATE for the origin of evolution. Stein just> loved it. Mud! MUD! The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable.
> Maybe this was when Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at
> this point that he started to show signs of exasperation, although he may
> still have thought that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a
> malevolent and clandestine agenda. Stein kept returning, throughout the
> film, to the phrase "on the backs of crystals", and the sycophantic audience
> in the Minneapolis cinema dutifully tittered every time."
> --------------------------
>
> Creationists lampoon a theory saying life could have come from 'mud', but
> what is their alternative? According to the Bible the first man was made
> from soil. So if they think 'mud' is silly then surely they are saying the> Bible's account is ridiculous?
>
> Steve M

Maybe it was "holy mud"?

X-No-Archive: yes
"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:ZdmdnQFo1a9paYnVnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@plusnet...


> Creationists lampoon a theory saying life could have come from 'mud', but 
> what is their alternative? According to the Bible the first man was made 
> from soil. So if they think 'mud' is silly then surely they are saying the 
> Bible's account is ridiculous?


I am forever amazed at the *actuality* of creationist theory.
Evolution is all but explained and proven (..accepting that we havn't yet 
worked out the ultimate goal of life start) and yet the ID brigade want us 
to believe, presumably, that this deity, sort of omnipotent being, existed 
forever - no beginning, no end - operating *somewhere in and out of this 
entire universe and space time continum, chooses 'this' planet, for some 
unexplicable reason, a nothing piece of earth flying through space along 
with trillions and trillions of other bits of earth - somehow places onto 
the ground of this planet a *man*  and a *woman*.  How does that work 
then...?
I mean, one day nothing to do with 'human' life exists than....bang, two 
humans arrive on the ground.  How..?  I mean physically how...?  Grown 
adults, not life cells, what age...? where did *they* come from...? 
somewhere else..? how did they travel...?  How did they aquire life 
skills...? ( not from evolving that's for sure.)
It's fascinating.... like the transporter in Star Trek.  Fizz, woosh, zangle 
and hey presto.... two humans, fully developed appear on earth.
So how does the ancestory (that we *know* exists from genetics) get going 
and cross from this space illusion into other life...?
It gets skipped over as god can do anything......ok, if he exists, maybe he 
can but.....two humans can't do anything.  They can't travel through space 
and time, through dimensions, through anything really...
Fascinating.  How do creationists deal with this aspect of the fairy 
story...?

Mark

"mark"  wrote

> Evolution is all but explained and proven

I would say it is explained and proven.

>(..accepting that we havn't yet worked out the ultimate goal of life start)

Need there be a goal? I don't think it is the job of the theory of evolution 
to explain that, if there is one.

Steve M

X-No-Archive: yes

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:1209417021.23914.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>
> "mark"  wrote
>
>> Evolution is all but explained and proven
>
> I would say it is explained and proven.


hmm......  pretty convincing evidence thus far.......but proven??


>>(..accepting that we havn't yet worked out the ultimate goal of life 
>>start)


> Need there be a goal? I don't think it is the job of the theory of 
> evolution to explain that, if there is one.

The goal exists..... it remains a quest to work out how life on earth 
started.
Evolution is fine but regression still runs into the buffers of first life.
I agree entirely that's not the job of evolution and did not suggest it 
was...


Mark