http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html

Long but interesting reading..Ken

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 17:02:52 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
wrote:

>http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html
>
>Long but interesting reading..Ken

There's a lot of good stuff on that site.

This is another good one, on the asymmetry of conversion:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/conversion_asymmetry.html

It's part of a larger "leaving Christianity" site, but never having
been a Christian I didn't find that particularly interesting. Your
mileage might vary:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#contents

On Jun 8, 7:02 pm, Ken  wrote:
> http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-t...
>
> Long but interesting reading..Ken

REPLY:  Having been on both sides of the fence with being an atheist
for 10 years and now a Christian, it is far more rationale to believe
that every Design requires a personal Designer/Creator and its already
proven there is great design to this universe by cosmologists.  Unless
one can show accidents can create complex design over time, atheism is
untrue.  I did find however that as an atheist, it gave me all the
personal freedom to live as i wanted to .  Because i was willing to
heavily investigate Christianity and Theism,  I found them to be the
most compelling from a truth standpoint.  As scientific discover goes
forward, it will lead closer to a personal infinite Creator because
accidents and naturalistic means does not account for what we have,
nor ever could regardless of billions of years.

On Jun 8, 7:02 pm, Ken  wrote:
> http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-t...
>
> Long but interesting reading..Ken

REPLY: This site doesnt offer any credible rebuttal to Geislers
book ;  the site is just basically pretend dialogue sillyness .  The
book, 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist'  is so compelling
that many atheists have written in saying how compelling the book
truly is.  But it isnt for people who 'know there is no Creator'  ...
its a book for those truly and honestly interested in researching the
most important of all issues :  A personal infinite Creator existing
and the implications thereof to all of us. For the book , go to :
www.impactapologetics.com

On Jun 9, 6:37 am, dimwit dave, the trolling webtv fundy fuckhead
wrote this shit

> REPLY: This site doesnt offer any credible rebuttal to Geislers
> book ;  the site is just basically pretend dialogue sillyness

So, it's not unlike the basically pretend dialogue sillyness you have
with your imaginary sky fairy and all your pretend imaginary
supporters here on the Usenet?
(of which we all know don't and have never existed, except within your
mental unbalanced delusions)

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:02 pm, Ken  wrote:
>> http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-t...
>>
>> Long but interesting reading..Ken
>
> REPLY:  Having been on both sides of the fence with being an atheist
> for 10 years and now a Christian,

I would say you were more an Anarchist than an Atheist.

> it is far more rationale to believe
> that every Design requires a personal Designer/Creator and its already
> proven there is great design to this universe by cosmologists.

So you keep saying: However when you're asked to cite any of this alleged 
"proof" all we get in response is misquotes, lies, and erroneus balderdash.

>  Unless
> one can show accidents can create complex design over time, atheism is
> untrue.

Unless you can prove the existance of your god, Christianity is untrue - And 
you can't: That fact is blatantly obvious.

>  I did find however that as an atheist, it gave me all the
> personal freedom to live as i wanted to .

I heavily dispute that you were an Atheist. From what you've already stated 
you were an Anarchist, a rebel without a cause; also without a brain.

>  Because i was willing to
> heavily investigate Christianity and Theism,  I found them to be the
> most compelling from a truth standpoint.

If you were ever to start a thorough unbiased factual investigation of 
Christianity you'd be horrified, sickened, and terrified: You run as far 
away from it as possible.

>  As scientific discover goes
> forward, it will lead closer to a personal infinite Creator because
> accidents and naturalistic means does not account for what we have,
> nor ever could regardless of billions of years.

A prophet now too eh?

A prophet without a brain is like a gutter without a drain: Full up with wet 
soggy rubbish and stagnant.

-- 
http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

In article 
,
 "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:

> On Jun 8, 7:02 pm, Ken  wrote:
> > http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-t...
> >
> > Long but interesting reading..Ken
> 
> REPLY: This site doesnt offer any credible rebuttal to Geislers
> book ;

Every point the book presents, Kyle promptly knocks it down. Great stuff!

> the site is just basically pretend dialogue sillyness .

You don't do dialogue, do you, Dave? Just long, inane monologues.

> The
> book, 'I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist'  is so compelling
> that many atheists have written in saying how compelling the book
> truly is.

It obviously didn't do the job it was supposed to do, otherwise they 
wouldn't still be atheists!

> But it isnt for people who 'know there is no Creator'  ...
> its a book for those truly and honestly interested in researching the
> most important of all issues :  A personal infinite Creator existing
> and the implications thereof to all of us. For the book , go to :
> www.impactapologetics.com

People have better things to spend their money on than third-rate 
fundamentalist apologetics.

Alwyn

On Jun 9, 6:37 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
 "is so compelling that many atheists have written in"

Care to quote a number?
Or is this just another typical evasive statements/answers like:
"Everyone can clearly see this, no one is really an atheist, everyone
believes in the creator, there is no absolutely no scientific
evidence, and the plenitude of other No True Scotman excuses you use
when confronted with information you can't digest?

While we on the subject of your evasiveness when do you intent to
consider these?'? (which I've posted over an dozen times?

Why are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your
religious addictions?
Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right
and wrong?
Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
breakdown in your personal relationships?
Do you think you've ever gotten special messages from your god or
that your god can fix all your problems?
What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today?
How about your overt attitude of righteousness or superiority?
Do you find yourself in daily conflict with science, medicine, and
education, but spend excessive amounts of your time obsessive
praying, going to church, crusades, and quoting scripture?


Of course to you, all of this is perfectly normal, isn't it?

You need help, but you won't accept it, because everyone
else is wrong and you're the only one who's thinking correctly?

Sandy

Ken  wrote:

>http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html
>
>Long but interesting reading..Ken

I would say I have too much self-respect to be a Christian.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

On Jun 11, 4:15 am, Sleepalot  wrote:
> Ken  wrote:
> >http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-t...
>
> >Long but interesting reading..Ken
>
> I would say I have too much self-respect to be a Christian.
>
> --
> Sleepalot   aa #1385

And common sense
Sandy

On Jun 9, 10:49 am, sandi  wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:37 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
>  "is so compelling that many atheists have written in"
>
> Care to quote a number?
> Or is this just another typical evasive statements/answers like:
> "Everyone can clearly see this, no one is really an atheist, everyone
> believes in the creator, there is no absolutely no scientific
> evidence, and the plenitude of other No True Scotman excuses you use
> when confronted with information you can't digest?
>
> While we on the subject of your evasiveness when do you intent to
> consider these?'? (which I've posted over an dozen times?
>
> Why are you so afraid of confronting the obvious symptoms of your
> religious addictions?
> Do you see the world only in black and white, good and evil, right
> and wrong?
> Do you noticed a detachment from your job, friends or relatives or a
> breakdown in your personal relationships?
> Do you think you've ever gotten special messages from your god or
> that your god can fix all your problems?
> What about your uncompromising judgmental attitudes or shame-based
> belief that you aren't good enough as you exist today?
> How about your overt attitude of righteousness or superiority?
> Do you find yourself in daily conflict with science, medicine, and
> education, but spend excessive amounts of your time obsessive
> praying, going to church, crusades, and quoting scripture?
>
> Of course to you, all of this is perfectly normal, isn't it?
>
> You need help, but you won't accept it, because everyone
> else is wrong and you're the only one who's thinking correctly?
>
> Sandy

Still no reply?..isn't that surprising?

LennyL wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 17:02:52 -0700 (PDT), Ken  wrote:
> 
>> http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html
>>
>> Long but interesting reading..Ken
> 
> You don't have to believe in God to be a christian!

I would have thought that was a primary requirement. Then again, I do 
know that 82% of self-proclaimed "christians" in the UK also do say 
they don't believe there is a god. No-one ever accused religious types 
of actually making sense....

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 17:02:52 -0700 (PDT), Ken  wrote:

>http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be.html
>
>Long but interesting reading..Ken

You don't have to believe in God to be a christian!

In message <g3p2cq$m82$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, The Magpie 
 writes
>LennyL wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 17:02:52 -0700 (PDT), Ken  wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>>http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/03/i-dont-have-enough-faith-to
>>>-be.html
>>>
>>> Long but interesting reading..Ken
>>  You don't have to believe in God to be a christian!
>
>I would have thought that was a primary requirement. Then again, I do 
>know that 82% of self-proclaimed "christians" in the UK also do say 
>they don't believe there is a god. No-one ever accused religious types 
>of actually making sense....


Goes back a bit, but akin to : "We're not political : we vote 
Conservative."

Just been thoroughly enjoying Barchester Towers, an account of goings-on 
amongst the clergy and allied society. Gloriously funny.

What I really want to know is people displaying 'fish' on the backs of 
their cars drive so ineptly. And why the B*pt*st family up the road 
always drive too damn fast for a blind bend.

There used to be a theory that peeps who believed in an afterlife found 
it *so* much easier to start jnef....
-- 
Peter Thomas

On 24/06/2008 23:40, Peter Thomas wrote:

> What I really want to know is people displaying 'fish' on the backs of 
> their cars drive so ineptly. 

Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG

On Jun 24, 5:52 pm, Andy Burns 
wrote:
> On 24/06/2008 23:40, Peter Thomas wrote:
>
> > What I really want to know is people displaying 'fish' on the backs of
> > their cars drive so ineptly.
>
> Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG

Ever see that Gary Larson cartoon, "Great Moments in Evolution"?  In
it a school of fish have batted a ball from the water up onto the
shore and are trying to decide what to do about it.

The message <gvudnWyxCP9w5_zVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
from Andy Burns  contains these words:

> Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
> http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG

Ideally it should start with just two and evolve more as the months go by.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

In message <gvudnWyxCP9w5_zVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Andy Burns 
 writes
>On 24/06/2008 23:40, Peter Thomas wrote:
>
>> What I really want to know is people displaying 'fish' on the backs 
>>of  their cars drive so ineptly.
>
>Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
>http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG



Like it. Jolly good. ' evolve' rather than 'Darwin', and facing left 
rather than right.  Like the spanner. Is 'evolve', a suggestion, 
statement or command?


-- 
Peter Thomas

On Jun 25, 5:37 am, Peter Thomas
<peterdoub...@doubledemon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In message <gvudnWyxCP9w5_zVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dn...@posted.plusnet>, Andy Burns
>  writes
>
> >On 24/06/2008 23:40, Peter Thomas wrote:
>
> >> What I really want to know is people displaying 'fish' on the backs
> >>of  their cars drive so ineptly.
>
> >Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
> >http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG
>
> Like it. Jolly good. ' evolve' rather than 'Darwin', and facing left
> rather than right.  Like the spanner. Is 'evolve', a suggestion,
> statement or command?
>
"Evolve" is isomorphic to "exist".

Blind variation/selective retention, actually.

"Guy King"  wrote in message 
news:313030303432373948621DF747@zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <gvudnWyxCP9w5_zVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
> from Andy Burns  contains these words:
>
>> Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
>> http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG
>
> Ideally it should start with just two and evolve more as the months go by.
>
Why does nobody ever eat fish toes, they eat the fingers don't they?


-- 
Chris
Ignoti nulla cupido

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Cerumen) wrote in
<g3tbe5$bt9$1@registered.motzarella.org>::

>
>"Guy King"  wrote in message 
>news:313030303432373948621DF747@zetnet.co.uk...
>> The message <gvudnWyxCP9w5_zVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
>> from Andy Burns  contains these words:
>>
>>> Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
>>> http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG
>>
>> Ideally it should start with just two and evolve more as the months go by.
>>
>Why does nobody ever eat fish toes, they eat the fingers don't they?

Hmmm.  You never see mermaids any more, do you?
-- 
Marc

"The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the liberals and the conservatives, 
or the Federation and the Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." 
(an anonymous poster on cypherpunks list)

The message <tlF8tbBx$hYIFwtD@godthoms.demon.co.uk>
from Peter Thomas <peterdoubled@doubledemon.co.uk.invalid> contains
these words:


> Like it. Jolly good. ' evolve' rather than 'Darwin', and facing left 
> rather than right.  Like the spanner. Is 'evolve', a suggestion, 
> statement or command?

Arj Sigh'n'Tits had a letter the other week about teaching Intelligent
Design. The writer , from Connecticut[1]) reckoned it should be taught
in detail...

"The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being
created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are
not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support
this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven
using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past,
present or future events. OK, now let's move on to the theory of
evolution."

[1] The spelling of which may still be evolving - at least in my hands.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The message <g3tbe5$bt9$1@registered.motzarella.org>
from "Cerumen"  contains these words:

> > Ideally it should start with just two and evolve more as the months go by.
> >
> Why does nobody ever eat fish toes, they eat the fingers don't they?

Finny man.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Guy King) wrote in
::

>The message <tlF8tbBx$hYIFwtD@godthoms.demon.co.uk>
>from Peter Thomas <peterdoubled@doubledemon.co.uk.invalid> contains
>these words:
>
>
>> Like it. Jolly good. ' evolve' rather than 'Darwin', and facing left 
>> rather than right.  Like the spanner. Is 'evolve', a suggestion, 
>> statement or command?
>
>Arj Sigh'n'Tits had a letter the other week about teaching Intelligent
>Design. The writer , from Connecticut[1]) reckoned it should be taught
>in detail...
>
>"The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being
>created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are
>not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support
>this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven
>using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past,
>present or future events. OK, now let's move on to the theory of
>evolution."

Heh.  I enjoyed that one as well.  Makes sense to me.
-- 
Marc

"I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is
 that only part of hell will break loose and be much harder to
detect." -- George Carlin

Guy King said:
>
> Connecticut[1]


IRTA "the state of not having Internet access".


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

"Znep"  wrote in message 
news:58d464hk8ckjpq4ksbfmivptnhth99noth@4ax.com...
> In uk.rec.sheds,  (Cerumen) wrote in
> <g3tbe5$bt9$1@registered.motzarella.org>::
>
>>
>>"Guy King"  wrote in message
>>news:313030303432373948621DF747@zetnet.co.uk...
>>> The message <gvudnWyxCP9w5_zVnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
>>> from Andy Burns  contains these words:
>>>
>>>> Mine has limbs, it's only drawn two comments on 9 months.
>>>> http://www.darwinuk.com/images/uploads/Evolve_Fish_Sticker2_300.JPG
>>>
>>> Ideally it should start with just two and evolve more as the months go 
>>> by.
>>>
>>Why does nobody ever eat fish toes, they eat the fingers don't they?
>
> Hmmm.  You never see mermaids any more, do you?
>
Not since I started being dope tested for the sailing.


-- 
Chris
Ignoti nulla cupido

The message 
from Znep  contains these words:

> Heh.  I enjoyed that one as well.  Makes sense to me.

The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
that there is any significant doubt.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Guy King said:
> from Znep  contains these words:
>
>> Heh.  I enjoyed that one as well.  Makes sense to me.
>
> The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
> that there is any significant doubt.

yeahwell, that's the Propaganda Of Today, innit. Doesn't tell you that _you_
should think $that_which_is_to_be_propagated, just tries to leave the vague
you-don't-really-notice-it's-there impression that everybody else does. So
you can either settle for a vague 'respect for the opinions of others in a
Multiwossname Liberal Democracy' (aka shut up & go along because you think
everybody else wants it) or, if you really don't want to swallow it, you're
entirely Free to feel like you're out on a limb where nobody else agrees
with you.


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 25 Jun, 16:09, Guy King  wrote:

> The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
> that there is any significant doubt.
>
In /exactly/ the same way as they teach the controversy about Global
Warming.  There seem to be a significant overlap between the
disbelievers in Darwin and the Denyers of GW.

On 25 Jun, 15:50, Richard Robinson  wrote:

> > Connecticut[1]
>
> IRTA "the state of not having Internet access".

You are thinking of Rhode Island, then.

bobharvey said:
> On 25 Jun, 15:50, Richard Robinson  wrote:
>
>> > Connecticut[1]
>>
>> IRTA "the state of not having Internet access".
>
> You are thinking of Rhode Island, then.

Pinko Chickens

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Guy King) wrote in
::

>The message 
>from Znep  contains these words:
>
>> Heh.  I enjoyed that one as well.  Makes sense to me.
>
>The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
>that there is any significant doubt.

Well, they're trying to smuggle God into the science classroom,
disguised as a controversy.  I like the way the abovementioned approach
short-circuits this.

I also think they should have a class on the difference between "theory"
and "hypothesis", to derail the cries of "only a theory".
-- 
Marc

"Nuclear physics is much easier than tax law. It's rational and always works the same way."  (Jerold Rochwald )

The message 
from Guy King  contains these words:
> The message <tlF8tbBx$hYIFwtD@godthoms.demon.co.uk>
> from Peter Thomas <peterdoubled@doubledemon.co.uk.invalid> contains
> these words:


> > Like it. Jolly good. ' evolve' rather than 'Darwin', and facing left 
> > rather than right.  Like the spanner. Is 'evolve', a suggestion, 
> > statement or command?

> Arj Sigh'n'Tits had a letter the other week about teaching Intelligent
> Design. The writer , from Connecticut[1]) reckoned it should be taught
> in detail...

> "The theory of intelligent design states that an omnipotent being
> created the universe and everything in it for reasons we cannot, and are
> not meant to, comprehend. There is no quantifiable evidence to support
> this theory, there are no hypotheses that can be proven or disproven
> using this theory, and it offers no predictive ability for any past,
> present or future events. OK, now let's move on to the theory of
> evolution."

> [1] The spelling of which may still be evolving - at least in my hands.

Like the Connecticutter's haqrefgnaqvat of the worms 'theory' and
'hypotheses'.

-- 
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message 
from Znep  contains these words:

> I also think they should have a class on the difference between "theory"
> and "hypothesis", to derail the cries of "only a theory".

TheoRays!

-- 
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Guy King wrote:
> The message 
> from Znep  contains these words:
> 
>> Heh.  I enjoyed that one as well.  Makes sense to me.
> 
> The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
> that there is any significant doubt.
> 
I disagree. I tell my students that they have to write balanced essays 
which present both sides of the argument. That doesn't mean they have to 
conclude both sides are equally good. After all a football referee is 
supposed to be fair and balanced, but not every game must end in a tie. 
It means you don't overlook the good points of the opposite side of the 
argument, and you don't ignore the bad sides of yours. And then at the 
end you conclude that your side is better (well if you seriously thought 
the other side was better, that would be your side in the first place).

You can't say "I'm in favour of science, so I'm not even going to let 
you know what the other point-of-view is". If you're in favour of 
science you have to try to weigh up the evidence and arguments on both 
sides. In this case one side doesn't have any evidence and its arguments 
are pants. Teaching kids (of the appropriate age and preparation) about 
it is an excellent way of teahcing them the difference between real 
science and masquerading-as-science, and will stand them in good stead 
for the rest of their lives.

Melanie Rimmer said:
> Guy King wrote:
>> 
>> The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
>> that there is any significant doubt.
>> 
> I disagree. I tell my students that they have to write balanced essays 
> which present both sides of the argument. That doesn't mean they have to 
> conclude both sides are equally good. After all a football referee is 
> supposed to be fair and balanced, but not every game must end in a tie. 
> It means you don't overlook the good points of the opposite side of the 
> argument, and you don't ignore the bad sides of yours. And then at the 
> end you conclude that your side is better (well if you seriously thought 
> the other side was better, that would be your side in the first place).
>
> You can't say "I'm in favour of science, so I'm not even going to let 
> you know what the other point-of-view is". If you're in favour of 
> science you have to try to weigh up the evidence and arguments on both 
> sides. In this case one side doesn't have any evidence and its arguments 
> are pants. Teaching kids (of the appropriate age and preparation) about 
> it is an excellent way of teahcing them the difference between real 
> science and masquerading-as-science, and will stand them in good stead 
> for the rest of their lives.

I agree with all this except that the conclusion is what this nonsense
threatens.

You are right, but all of this is utterly devalued and made into
disrespect-able gibberish if you tell the kids this and then go on to give
'em ID in a Science lesson, if you're obliged to be pretending that _you_
can't tell the difference.  Ideally, perhaps, you'd teach it as an example
of the difference, or a dead idea (except it ain't. I hear there's a Flat
Earth Society as well) like phlogiston, humours, Aristotle(? et al)'s four
elements, and so on, but this is what the "it's a valid controversy" stuff
is about, forbidding this.  Which leaves it nowhere to go except Religion.
Along with the FSM and its blessed noodles, of course. [1]

Oh dear, I've been writing too much perl, that last sentence suddenly looks
all disturbing.

[1] Where, ahem, "one could argue that" it also doesn't belong. Personally,
I think I'd want to teach it under Politics.

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

The message 
from Melanie Rimmer  contains these words:

> You can't say "I'm in favour of science, so I'm not even going to let 
> you know what the other point-of-view is".

I wasn't suggesting that. What I resent is being told that there is a
good deal of controversy about the subject when there isn't. I've
nothing against informing students that there are other views, but
giving them more weight than is their due leads to things like the FSM.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The message <48628fd7$0$78073$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
from Richard Robinson  contains these words:

> Which leaves it nowhere to go except Religion.
> Along with the FSM and its blessed noodles, of course. [1]

Noodlerays!

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Guy King said:
> from Richard Robinson  contains these words:
>
>> Which leaves it nowhere to go except Religion.
>> Along with the FSM and its blessed noodles, of course. [1]
>
> Noodlerays!

Well, it's inevitable, innit ? If the FSM hadn't existed, ID is why people
would have invented one.


Someone, once, posted a link to one its websites. All full of letters to US
Congressthings, and so on, pointing out that all the same arguments apply,
so if they're going to pass any laws about how Controversies must be Taught
...


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Melanie Rimmer wrote:

> I disagree. I tell my students that they have to write balanced essays 
> which present both sides of the argument. 

I want to know who decided there were only two sides to the argument?

Everyone will look very silly if someone comes up with a "better fit" 
that is neither intelligent design or evolution.

Nev

In article <g3vhnl$lh4$2@aioe.org>, newsforpasiphae1953@yahoo.co.uk 
says...
> Melanie Rimmer wrote:
> 
> > I disagree. I tell my students that they have to write balanced essays 
> > which present both sides of the argument. 
> 
> I want to know who decided there were only two sides to the argument?

Aristotle

-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

nev young said:
> Melanie Rimmer wrote:
>
>> I disagree. I tell my students that they have to write balanced essays 
>> which present both sides of the argument. 
>
> I want to know who decided there were only two sides to the argument?
>
> Everyone will look very silly if someone comes up with a "better fit" 
> that is neither intelligent design or evolution.

Not everyone, just the people who treat it like a football match. The ones
who just want to know would probably look interested.


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In uk.rec.sheds,  (nev young) wrote in <g3vhnl$lh4$2@aioe.org>::

>Melanie Rimmer wrote:
>
>> I disagree. I tell my students that they have to write balanced essays 
>> which present both sides of the argument. 
>
>I want to know who decided there were only two sides to the argument?
>
>Everyone will look very silly if someone comes up with a "better fit" 
>that is neither intelligent design or evolution.

We'll almost certainly come up with something that's a better fit,
that's not evolution-as-we-know-it.  Darwin wouldn't recognise (except
in very general terms) a lot that's done in his name.

But evolution is as well established as any theory we have on the books;
it makes testable predictions that *can* be observed in relatively short
timescales.
-- 
Marc

Quos deus vult perdere, prius liberos eos tympanum dat.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
bobharvey  wrote:

> On 25 Jun, 16:09, Guy King  wrote:
> 
> > The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
> > that there is any significant doubt.
> >
> In /exactly/ the same way as they teach the controversy about Global
> Warming.  There seem to be a significant overlap between the
> disbelievers in Darwin and the Denyers of GW.

	Really ? I find myself in the position where I know from
experimental evidence of my own making that evolution works and that I find
the cases both for and against the theory that human produced carbon
dioxide is causing global warming to be completely unconvincing. The more I
look at it the more convinced I become that nobody has any real clue as to
what affects the climate in the short, medium or long term.

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/

Guy King wrote:

>> You can't say "I'm in favour of science, so I'm not even going to let 
>> you know what the other point-of-view is".
> 
> I wasn't suggesting that. What I resent is being told that there is a
> good deal of controversy about the subject when there isn't.

What irritates me is this: I have yet to see any Reasoned arguments 
against the less dramatically stated claims of ID. What I Have seen, 
repeatedly, is variations on the theme of "Those ideas are a load of 
junk, why do they insult us by expecting us to give them any 
consideration whatsoever" etc. Now I've come to expect that from the 
Dawkins of this world, but was disappointed when the same attitude came 
from David Attenborough. Then, from less qualified people, we get a lot 
of the scientific equivalent of the managementspeak we've been 
discussing in another thread, about why ID is junk without actually 
giving any clear reasons why. If I was completely arj to the subject, I 
reckon that two things would occur to me: firstly that if it is so 
patently bunkum, why do you seem to be so unwilling to explain to the 
layman Why it is such bunkum rather than expecting the layman to accept 
your pronouncement on the basis that the layman should have faith in 
your greatness as a scientist? Secondly, it would be hard not to wonder 
"Methinks he doth protest too much."

This crossed my mind again recently listening to "Cosmic Quest" on 
radio4 now and then. This week alone it has mentioned Chandrasekhar 
being chewed up by Arthur Eddington, not because his maths was wrong, 
but because Eddington didn't like the implcations, and Vera Rubin being 
told to shut up about dark matter. Last week it was Einstein hanging on 
to his Cosmological constant in the face of the arguments of Friedman 
and Lemaitre. And although it now looks as if Einstein might have been 
right after all, with the evidence available at the time, Friedman and 
Lemaitre made the better arguments. Einstein, at least, was the 
exception in that he fully admitted his mistakes later, but in general 
the scientific establishment has an appalling record of dealing with new 
ideas by ad hominem attacks rather than by careful investigation and 
disproving. Fleischman and Pons may have turned out to be wrong, but 
they were heavily attacked long before anyone had reliably checked their 
claims. Even poor old Gallileo, it could be argued, got into trouble as 
much because he upset the scientific orthodoxy of the day, and those 
people stirred up trouble for him with the religious authorities. 
According to Wikipedia:"In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo 
complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had 
refused even to look through a telescope." The orthodoxy of the day was 
Aristotelian, and Gallileo disagreed with that on other matters too, 
such as why objects do or do not float.

As I wrote in a very poor song ages ago, about the Grand Unified Theory, 
or Theory of Everything:
My GUT reaction,
is that you've got to TOE the line,
or be labelled as a heretic
by the historians of time.
.....
They keep their expertise exclusive
to keep their consensus pure.

-- 
JonG
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.

JonG wrote:
> Guy King wrote:
> 
>>> You can't say "I'm in favour of science, so I'm not even going to let 
>>> you know what the other point-of-view is".
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting that. What I resent is being told that there is a
>> good deal of controversy about the subject when there isn't.
> 
> What irritates me is this: I have yet to see any Reasoned arguments 
> against the less dramatically stated claims of ID. What I Have seen, 
> repeatedly, is variations on the theme of "Those ideas are a load of 
> junk, why do they insult us by expecting us to give them any 
> consideration whatsoever" etc. Now I've come to expect that from the 
> Dawkins of this world, but was disappointed when the same attitude came 
> from David Attenborough. Then, from less qualified people, we get a lot 
> of the scientific equivalent of the managementspeak we've been 
> discussing in another thread, about why ID is junk without actually 
> giving any clear reasons why. If I was completely arj to the subject, I 
> reckon that two things would occur to me: firstly that if it is so 
> patently bunkum, why do you seem to be so unwilling to explain to the 
> layman Why it is such bunkum rather than expecting the layman to accept 
> your pronouncement on the basis that the layman should have faith in 
> your greatness as a scientist? Secondly, it would be hard not to wonder 
> "Methinks he doth protest too much."
> 
> This crossed my mind again recently listening to "Cosmic Quest" on 
> radio4 now and then. This week alone it has mentioned Chandrasekhar 
> being chewed up by Arthur Eddington, not because his maths was wrong, 
> but because Eddington didn't like the implcations, and Vera Rubin being 
> told to shut up about dark matter. Last week it was Einstein hanging on 
> to his Cosmological constant in the face of the arguments of Friedman 
> and Lemaitre. And although it now looks as if Einstein might have been 
> right after all, with the evidence available at the time, Friedman and 
> Lemaitre made the better arguments. Einstein, at least, was the 
> exception in that he fully admitted his mistakes later, but in general 
> the scientific establishment has an appalling record of dealing with new 
> ideas by ad hominem attacks rather than by careful investigation and 
> disproving. Fleischman and Pons may have turned out to be wrong, but 
> they were heavily attacked long before anyone had reliably checked their 
> claims. Even poor old Gallileo, it could be argued, got into trouble as 
> much because he upset the scientific orthodoxy of the day, and those 
> people stirred up trouble for him with the religious authorities. 
> According to Wikipedia:"In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo 
> complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had 
> refused even to look through a telescope." The orthodoxy of the day was 
> Aristotelian, and Gallileo disagreed with that on other matters too, 
> such as why objects do or do not float.

Absolutely, wot he said.

I firmly believe many of the notions espoused by some of the champions
of "Intelligent Design" are, NTPTFAPOI, a crock of shite, and I
consider myself an agnostic, more or less, but I don't disagree
with a word of the above.

I find Dawkins, for example, somewhat annoying, because he seems to
me so unsubtle and limited, yet so cocksure. Not exactly Kurt
Gödel, yer Richard Dawkins. Tribalism, innit. Pick a side and
shout their slogans, avoids all this Hard Thinking business.

> As I wrote in a very poor song ages ago, about the Grand Unified Theory, 
> or Theory of Everything:
> My GUT reaction,
> is that you've got to TOE the line,
> or be labelled as a heretic
> by the historians of time.
> .....
> They keep their expertise exclusive
> to keep their consensus pure.
> 


Cute...

JonG said:
> Guy King wrote:
>
>>> You can't say "I'm in favour of science, so I'm not even going to let 
>>> you know what the other point-of-view is".
>> 
>> I wasn't suggesting that. What I resent is being told that there is a
>> good deal of controversy about the subject when there isn't.
>
> What irritates me is this: I have yet to see any Reasoned arguments 
> against the less dramatically stated claims of ID.

I'm not getting sarcastic, or ironic, or any of those things, but ...  what
claims does it make that can be reasoned against ? In my limited knowledge
of it, it seems to consist of suggesting that The Scientists might be wrong
because the things they're studying might have been deliberately constructed
by something unstudiable. Is there anything more substantial to it ?


Looks like a simple clash of beliefs, to me. One side says that you just
molish the best gurbels you can, accept that there are ways they can be
shown to not jbex, and then you just have to try and use that to come up
with a better one; and that's how you do things. And the other side says ...
what, exactly ? It seems clear that there's a strong subcurrent of "well,
that's _not_ the way you do things", but, in favour of what ? How else is
anyone supposed to reach the conclusion that ID is a better idea ? "It all
depends on what you mean by 'better'"; which is not a thing you can prove
either way.


> ....... Even poor old Gallileo, it could be argued, got into trouble as 
> much because he upset the scientific orthodoxy of the day, and those 
> people stirred up trouble for him with the religious authorities. 

Have you read Koestler's 'the Sleepwalkers' ? About Copernicus, Kepler,
Galileo & al, and what they thought, at the time, they were doing and
discovering and learning. And how little it had to do with what we now
'know' they did. The relevance of this being, that he floats the idea that
Galileo was a stupid bloody-minded sod who was just _begging_ to be
persecuted. Me, I dunno.


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

The message <0022915d$0$11855$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
from JonG  contains
these words:

> What irritates me is this: I have yet to see any Reasoned arguments 
> against the less dramatically stated claims of ID.

I did rather like the paleontologist complaining that every time he
found a specimen that fitted in one of the creationists' beloved gaps
all he'd really done was turn it into two gaps.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Richard Robinson wrote:

>> What irritates me is this: I have yet to see any Reasoned arguments 
>> against the less dramatically stated claims of ID.
> 
> I'm not getting sarcastic, or ironic, or any of those things, but ...  what
> claims does it make that can be reasoned against ? In my limited knowledge
> of it, it seems to consist of suggesting that The Scientists might be wrong
> because the things they're studying might have been deliberately constructed
> by something unstudiable. Is there anything more substantial to it ?


The only specific claim which I have seen (very poorly) covered in any 
depth is that some biological mechanisms are made up of various 
individual components which, of themselves, have no function. Therefore, 
for each individual piece to have evolved as a currently useless 
structure, and lasted until all the other individually uselss pieces had 
arrived by chance, to then fit together, is in purely evolutionary 
terms, extraordinarily unlikely. The first example noted, IIRC, was the 
flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around fifty components 
which appear to have no individual function. Bit like saying "what use 
is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal combustion engine.

Now, this raises the question of how else did the structure appear, 
which some generally ill-informed people have seized on as "proof" of 
ID. Those who disagree with ID seem to have taken their dislike of those 
  people - and admittedly their often foolish pronouncements, as the way 
to discredit the original dilemma: How did the flagellum develop? And 
all I have heard is a lot of polemic, and little or no reasoned 
arguments as to either how the individual components Could appear, maybe 
with some other use, or why the suggestion that the chances of them 
appearing at (in evolutionary terms) the same time, is vanishingly 
small. If the idea is such penc, I would have thought it would be easy 
to debunk.


>> ....... Even poor old Gallileo, it could be argued, got into trouble as 
>> much because he upset the scientific orthodoxy of the day, and those 
>> people stirred up trouble for him with the religious authorities. 
> 
> Have you read Koestler's 'the Sleepwalkers' ? About Copernicus, Kepler,
> Galileo & al, and what they thought, at the time, they were doing and
> discovering and learning. And how little it had to do with what we now
> 'know' they did. The relevance of this being, that he floats the idea that
> Galileo was a stupid bloody-minded sod who was just _begging_ to be
> persecuted. Me, I dunno.

If not read the original (....!) but what I have heard about his 
"Dialogue" does tend to suggest that Dawkins' debating methods evolved 
from Gallileos....


-- 
JonG
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.

On 27/06/2008 08:34, JonG wrote:

> The only specific claim which I have seen (very poorly) covered in any > depth is that some biological mechanisms are made up of various 
> individual components which, of themselves, have no function. Therefore, 
> for each individual piece to have evolved as a currently useless 
> structure, and lasted until all the other individually uselss pieces had 
> arrived by chance, to then fit together, is in purely evolutionary 
> terms, extraordinarily unlikely. 

modern
    Σ  (unlikely * chances) ≥ probable?
ancient

I just wondered how ID intercepts the anthropic principle, but my brian 
went round in several circles.

On 2008-06-25, Steve O'Hara-Smith  wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
> bobharvey  wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jun, 16:09, Guy King  wrote:
>> 
>> > The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
>> > that there is any significant doubt.
>> >
>> In /exactly/ the same way as they teach the controversy about Global
>> Warming.  There seem to be a significant overlap between the
>> disbelievers in Darwin and the Denyers of GW.
>
> 	Really ? I find myself in the position where I know from
> experimental evidence of my own making that evolution works and that I find
> the cases both for and against the theory that human produced carbon
> dioxide is causing global warming to be completely unconvincing. The more I
> look at it the more convinced I become that nobody has any real clue as to
> what affects the climate in the short, medium or long term.

*applause*

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

The message <00231f5e$0$19200$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
from JonG  contains
these words:

> The first example noted, IIRC, was the 
> flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around fifty components 
> which appear to have no individual function. Bit like saying "what use 
> is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal combustion engine.

You could start here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

On 2008-06-27, Guy King  wrote:
> The message <00231f5e$0$19200$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
> from JonG  contains
> these words:
>
>> The first example noted, IIRC, was the 
>> flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around fifty components 
>> which appear to have no individual function. Bit like saying "what use 
>> is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal combustion engine.
>
> You could start here...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Of course, the ID loonies switched to flagella after their 'reasoning' about
their their previous favourite structure (the eye) was comprehensively
demolished.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Huge said:
> On 2008-06-27, Guy King  wrote:
>> from JonG  contains
>>
>>> The first example noted, IIRC, was the 
>>> flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around fifty components 
>>> which appear to have no individual function. Bit like saying "what use 
>>> is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal combustion engine.
>>
>> You could start here...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
>
> Of course, the ID loonies switched to flagella after their 'reasoning' about
> their their previous favourite structure (the eye) was comprehensively
> demolished.

Yebbut, I think JonG's point was, what about the non-loonies ?


'Dawkins' is another thing I know very little about [1], but what I've seen
reported [2] suggests that both football-teams have their loonies.


[1] In recent terms. I was impressed enough by 'the Blind Watchmaker' that I
went on and read a more recent one, and got the impression he was turning
into a football-supporter. "My tribe, right or wrong" sortathing.

[2] "reported". Ah, yes, well.

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

JonG said:
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>
>>> What irritates me is this: I have yet to see any Reasoned arguments 
>>> against the less dramatically stated claims of ID.
>> 
>> I'm not getting sarcastic, or ironic, or any of those things, but ...  what
>> claims does it make that can be reasoned against ? In my limited knowledge
>> of it, it seems to consist of suggesting that The Scientists might be wrong
>> because the things they're studying might have been deliberately constructed
>> by something unstudiable. Is there anything more substantial to it ?
>
> The only specific claim which I have seen (very poorly) covered in any 
> depth is that some biological mechanisms are made up of various 
> individual components which, of themselves, have no function. Therefore, 
> for each individual piece to have evolved as a currently useless 
> structure, and lasted until all the other individually uselss pieces had 
> arrived by chance, to then fit together, is in purely evolutionary 
> terms, extraordinarily unlikely. ...

Oh dear; I'm not going to be able to do justice to all this.

1) I can't discuss this point, as a technical question, I simply don't have
the background. Which raises the question, what is this "controversy" doing
lying around where everyone can trip over it, in the first place ? why can't
the people who understand the necessary details keep it to themselves ?
Which is why I suggested a few posts back that if it has to be taught it
should be as 'politics'. [18]

2) This argument depends on being sure these things _are_ useless. Is it
possible to be sure, given only that no-one has yet suggested any possible
function ? Argument from the 'opponent''s lack of imagination isn't that
convincing, really.

3) Is this any more than an elaborate variant of the FSM's splendid graph,
of seawater-temperature in the Caribbean against number of pirates operating
there ? "Your theory can't explain this, therefore ours is right". False
binaries, excluded middles, & all that.

It could be, perhaps, be more than that, but how do the jbexvatf go ? Okay,
it may (given 2 above) demonstrate a flaw in the prevailing theory. So you
propose an alternative that, you suggest, jbexeth better [1].  But, the
existence of such an alternative doesn't, itself, prove its feasibility. If
you want to hypothesise an 'intelligence' that did it deliberately, how can
that be formulated in terms that we can all jbex with ? Do we just look for
"anything else" that current thinking can't explain, and ascribe it all ?
Or only some of them, in which case where's the boundary, and why ?  Was
Einstein wrong with his explanation of the glitches in the victorian
theories of electromagnetic radiation, was the same intelligence responsible
for those ? Does it also move Wegener's tectonic plates ? Is it responsible
for smallpox ? _Does_ it reach out with its noodly appendage to make us
think there are reasonable explanations for things that 'really' don't
happen like that at all ? [pointless]. Or if not, why not ? What
characteristics would this intelligence have to have, for it to do some of
these and not the others ?  How would we find out whether such a 'thing'
does exist and 'possess' such characteristics, without reasoning in circles
?  what's to look for ? In other words, how is it a 'hypothesis' ?

[1] generic 'you', because I find it easier to write than 'one'. I'm not
meaning to put anything in JonG's, or anyone else's, mouth.

[pointless] or is the appendage really made out of tapioca ? gaffer tape ?


> Now, this raises the question of how else did the structure appear, which
> some generally ill-informed people have seized on as "proof" of ID. Those
> who disagree with ID seem to have taken their dislike of those people -
> and admittedly their often foolish pronouncements, as the way to discredit
> the original dilemma: How did the flagellum develop? And all I have heard
> is a lot of polemic, and little or no reasoned arguments as to either how
> the individual components Could appear, maybe with some other use, or why
> the suggestion that the chances of them appearing at (in evolutionary
> terms) the same time, is vanishingly small. If the idea is such penc, I
> would have thought it would be easy to debunk.

As above - how ?

From my background, upbringing, general attitudes ... belief-system, okay ?
... I'm more inclined to suspect that it's penc precisely because I can't
see how it could be debunked [gah].  Which doesn't mean that any sensible
objections it can raise to the current theories can be ignored, just that it
doesn't follow that people should (my beliefs, again, okay ?) be bounced
into accepting something else that itself also has flaws. People don't like
uncertainty, innit ? Watch out for those who try to take advantage of that.


[gah] Aha. An argument from my own lack of imagination, eh ? Time to stop.
Well, I did say I wan't going to be able to deal with it in its fullness...


[18] Is there a history of such abstruse minor points of specialised theory
being flung around so heatedly by people who simply don't understand them,
or have any involvement with the matter ?  (answer to self: most likely,
yes. Start with legislating the value of pi ...).

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 27 Jun 2008 07:43:46 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2008-06-25, Steve O'Hara-Smith  wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
> > bobharvey  wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 Jun, 16:09, Guy King  wrote:
> >> 
> >> > The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which
> >> > presupposes that there is any significant doubt.
> >> >
> >> In /exactly/ the same way as they teach the controversy about Global
> >> Warming.  There seem to be a significant overlap between the
> >> disbelievers in Darwin and the Denyers of GW.
> >
> > 	Really ? I find myself in the position where I know from
> > experimental evidence of my own making that evolution works and that I
> > find the cases both for and against the theory that human produced
> > carbon dioxide is causing global warming to be completely unconvincing.
> > The more I look at it the more convinced I become that nobody has any
> > real clue as to what affects the climate in the short, medium or long
> > term.
> 
> *applause*

	<turns red> /bow/

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/

JonG wrote:
> 
> If not read the original (....!) but what I have heard about his 
> "Dialogue" does tend to suggest that Dawkins' debating methods evolved 
> from Gallileos....

There's an order of these things, I goov - on YouTube one may find
Dawkins helping Bill O'Reilly[1] to make an ass out of himself (worthy,
if un-challenging) and one may also find some student or other
helping Mr Dawkins to make an ass of *him*self, by asking a
question which, while not un-addressed by the scientific
community he champions, was apparently outside Mr Dawkins'
repertoire of rhetorical rebuff. He does have a nice voice,
though, and is agreeably non-shouty in person, it seems.



[1] I'm impressed, by the way, to find that there are public
commentators who makes Melanie Phillips look like the acme
of courageous reason, by comparison.

In message <00231f5e$0$19200$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JonG 
 writes

>The only specific claim which I have seen (very poorly) covered in any 
>depth is that some biological mechanisms are made up of various 
>individual components which, of themselves, have no function. 
>Therefore, for each individual piece to have evolved as a currently 
>useless structure, and lasted until all the other individually uselss 
>pieces had arrived by chance, to then fit together, is in purely 
>evolutionary terms, extraordinarily unlikely. The first example noted, 
>IIRC, was the flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around 
>fifty components which appear to have no individual function. Bit like 
>saying "what use is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal 
>combustion engine.

That specific argument won't fly because most of the components of the 
flagellum are very similar to the mechanism that causes cytoplasmic 
streaming, and the one that separates the chromosomes during 
cell-division.




-- 
Bernard Peek

Guy King wrote:

>> The first example noted, IIRC, was the 
>> flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around fifty components 
>> which appear to have no individual function. Bit like saying "what use 
>> is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal combustion engine.
> 
> You could start here...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
> 

Fine.

Now, if some of the documentaries I once bothered to watch on the tpoic 
had actually used some of that information, rather than simply 
condemning the opposition for daring to suggest what they suggest 
without making any attempt to explain Why they should not be making such 
suggestions, then I might not have stopped bothering to watch such 
documentaries.

-- 
JonG
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.

The message <0023df5e$0$19223$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
from JonG  contains
these words:

> Now, if some of the documentaries I once bothered to watch on the tpoic 
> had actually used some of that information, rather than simply 
> condemning the opposition for daring to suggest what they suggest 
> without making any attempt to explain Why they should not be making such 
> suggestions, then I might not have stopped bothering to watch such 
> documentaries.

Ah, well, that's 'cos as rational thinking people we're expected to go
do some looking around instead of having it all handed to us by a book.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The message <0022915d$0$11855$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
from JonG  contains
these words:

/snip/

> This crossed my mind again recently listening to "Cosmic Quest" on 
> radio4 now and then. This week alone it has mentioned Chandrasekhar 
> being chewed up by Arthur Eddington, not because his maths was wrong, 
> but because Eddington didn't like the implcations, and Vera Rubin being 
> told to shut up about dark matter. Last week it was Einstein hanging on 
> to his Cosmological constant in the face of the arguments of Friedman 
> and Lemaitre.

/snip/

Gud, wasn't it?

-- 
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

On 2008-06-27, Richard Robinson  wrote:
> Huge said:
>> On 2008-06-27, Guy King  wrote:
>>> from JonG  contains
>>>
>>>> The first example noted, IIRC, was the 
>>>> flagellum of the E. coli bacterium, which has around fifty components 
>>>> which appear to have no individual function. Bit like saying "what use 
>>>> is a sparkplug without the rest of teh internal combustion engine.
>>>
>>> You could start here...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
>>
>> Of course, the ID loonies switched to flagella after their 'reasoning' about
>> their their previous favourite structure (the eye) was comprehensively
>> demolished.
>
> Yebbut, I think JonG's point was, what about the non-loonies ?

IMO, there are no non-loony ID proponents. Believing in ID is 'de facto'
evidence of loonyhood.



-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Huge wrote:

>>> Of course, the ID loonies switched to flagella after their 'reasoning' about
>>> their their previous favourite structure (the eye) was comprehensively
>>> demolished.
>> Yebbut, I think JonG's point was, what about the non-loonies ?
> 
> IMO, there are no non-loony ID proponents. Believing in ID is 'de facto'
> evidence of loonyhood.

But that, I'm afraid, is getting close to another example of the 
circular arguments too often hfrq by the scientific "establishment":

A: Proposal "x" is clearly bunkum, because no reputable scientist 
believes in proposal "x".

B: How are you defining "reputable"?

A: In this situation, as someone who doesn't believe in "x".


And thus are many people persuaded that "x" is proven bunkum. As for me, 
I take the opposite view: When I spot such an argument, it makes me very 
suspicious that A doesn't actually have any valid arguments against 
proposal "x", and therefore has to rely on fudge and bluster. Hence my 
mention above of Chandrasekhar and Eddington.

Of course, such fudge and bluster does not, of itself, prove "x" either, 
but my original complaint was not about the truth or otherwise of ID, 
but about the many examples of sloppy, if not downright dishonest 
counter-arguments that I have encountered. If the establishment wants to 
claim whatever the scientific equivalent is of the moral high ground, 
then many are going the wrong way about it.

-- 
JonG
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.

On 2008-06-29, JonG  wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>
>>>> Of course, the ID loonies switched to flagella after their 'reasoning' about
>>>> their their previous favourite structure (the eye) was comprehensively
>>>> demolished.
>>> Yebbut, I think JonG's point was, what about the non-loonies ?
>> 
>> IMO, there are no non-loony ID proponents. Believing in ID is 'de facto'
>> evidence of loonyhood.
>
> But that, I'm afraid, is getting close to another example of the 
> circular arguments too often hfrq by the scientific "establishment":

Close, but not snuggled up to.

> If the establishment wants to 
> claim whatever the scientific equivalent is of the moral high ground, 
> then many are going the wrong way about it.

I suspect that many find it so hard to think about ID that they are lost for
words when it comes to arguing against it. It's just obviously such utter tosh
that one is uncertain where to begin. Sometimes one find that one doesn't even
have any terminology in common. "Energy" and "organic" are good ones, for
example.

Although one could start with the fact that the human body is so obviously badly
designed that "intelligent" is not the right word by any stretch of the
imagination.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Huge said:
> On 2008-06-29, JonG 
> wrote:
>
>> If the establishment wants to claim whatever the scientific equivalent is
>> of the moral high ground, then many are going the wrong way about it.
>
> I suspect that many find it so hard to think about ID that they are lost
> for words when it comes to arguing against it. It's just obviously such
> utter tosh that one is uncertain where to begin.

'Heresy' is the word, I think. A violation of the basic assumptions.


"Thinking the unthinkable" is a neat trick, if you can get away with it; but
shouldn't it involve making some other idea jbex, at some point ? And it's
not clear to me, still, what that would be. The only non-loony-claim offered
so far appears to be that the orthodox theory might not be complete, though
Bernard appears to say otherwise. (See ! controversy !) But if anyone has
something that can do a better wbo, I think we still have to hear what it is
?


"If you wish to be consistent, you should never use the word 'should'
without an 'if' clause". Where on earth did I pick that up from ?  had it in
my head for decades now.

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 29 Jun 2008 12:09:49 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
 wrote in <g47u2d$462$1@anubis.demon.co.uk>:

> I suspect that many find it so hard to think about ID that they are lost for
> words when it comes to arguing against it. It's just obviously such utter tosh
> that one is uncertain where to begin. Sometimes one find that one doesn't even
> have any terminology in common. "Energy" and "organic" are good ones, for
> example.

'However, this was not his most severe criticism, which he reserved for
theories or theses so unclearly presented as to be untestable or
unevaluatable, and thus not properly belonging within the realm of
science, even though posing as such. They were worse than wrong because
they could not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear
paper: "It is not even wrong."'
	-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli
 
-- 
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________  CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University.    Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch]    Room 40-1-B12, CERN
        KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

Huge wrote:

>> But that, I'm afraid, is getting close to another example of the 
>> circular arguments too often hfrq by the scientific "establishment":
> 
> Close, but not snuggled up to.
> 

Heh Heh. I did go back and edit that to include the "getting close to". 
This is the Shed, after all, where people can think, as opposed to Real 
Life.

-- 
JonG
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Salvor Hardin, Mayor of Terminus.

JonG  wrote:

> Huge wrote:
> 
> > IMO, there are no non-loony ID proponents. Believing in ID is 'de facto'
> > evidence of loonyhood.
> 
> But that, I'm afraid, is getting close to another example of the 
> circular arguments too often hfrq by the scientific "establishment":
> 
> A: Proposal "x" is clearly bunkum, because no reputable scientist 
> believes in proposal "x".
> 
> B: How are you defining "reputable"?
> 
> A: In this situation, as someone who doesn't believe in "x".
> 
> 
> And thus are many people persuaded that "x" is proven bunkum. As for me, 
> I take the opposite view: When I spot such an argument, it makes me very 
> suspicious that A doesn't actually have any valid arguments against 
> proposal "x", and therefore has to rely on fudge and bluster. Hence my 
> mention above of Chandrasekhar and Eddington.

Ok, but now substitute for "x":

- astrology
- fruitarianism
- anthropological criminology (a.k.a. craniometry)
- faeces-smelling and similar McKeithisms

and consider how tiringly often real scientists have had to refute all
these "sciences" already. After a while, "because it's bunkum" is simply
the only refutation left worth making - one more time explaining that
no, just because a die is right one time in six doesn't mean that it's
psychic, and the scientist's head will explode.

Richard

Richard Bos said:
> JonG  wrote:
>
>> A: Proposal "x" is clearly bunkum, because no reputable scientist 
>> believes in proposal "x".
>> 
>> B: How are you defining "reputable"?
>> 
>> A: In this situation, as someone who doesn't believe in "x".

(this is the bit that makes it circular, and may, just perhaps, be putting
words into someone's mouth ? There are other definitions, after all. See
"peer review"[1])

>> And thus are many people persuaded that "x" is proven bunkum. As for me, 
>> I take the opposite view: When I spot such an argument, it makes me very 
>> suspicious that A doesn't actually have any valid arguments against 
>> proposal "x", and therefore has to rely on fudge and bluster. Hence my 
>> mention above of Chandrasekhar and Eddington.
>
> Ok, but now substitute for "x":
>
> - astrology
> - fruitarianism
> - anthropological criminology (a.k.a. craniometry)
> - faeces-smelling and similar McKeithisms
>
> and consider how tiringly often real scientists have had to refute all
> these "sciences" already. After a while, "because it's bunkum" is simply
> the only refutation left worth making - one more time explaining that
> no, just because a die is right one time in six doesn't mean that it's
> psychic, and the scientist's head will explode.


It seems to me that an important part of the discussion would be the bit
where $proponent takes the trouble to show $scientist why their proposal
_isn't_ bunkum. If they succeed, they become a "reputable scientist"
themself.

After all, if we're talking abot "fudge and bluster", something that stamps
its feet and complains about how no-one's taking it seriously enough, it
isn't fair and everyone's being horrible to it, is usually referred to as "a
teenager".


[1] which can itself raise curious questions. Whose peers ? If a loony
writes a really silly paper, wouldn't their peers be other loonies ?

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Steve O'Hara-Smith  wrote:

> bobharvey  wrote:
> 
> > On 25 Jun, 16:09, Guy King  wrote:
> > 
> > > The approach the bothers me is "Teach the controversy" which presupposes
> > > that there is any significant doubt.
> >
> > In /exactly/ the same way as they teach the controversy about Global
> > Warming.  There seem to be a significant overlap between the
> > disbelievers in Darwin and the Denyers of GW.
> 
> 	Really ? I find myself in the position where I know from
> experimental evidence of my own making that evolution works

You do? Which species have you produced that didn't exist befo