Strolling with a skeptical biochemist
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly
seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We
can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by
an intellignet being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the
variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind
blows.
Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.
CharlesScience reveals where religion conceals. Where religion
purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no
more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation..
The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84
8 comments:
Heh. The banner at that news site includes a photo of a "Welcome to Chambersburg" sign. Looks like they need to add "...unless you're an atheist traitor".
But, geez: how thin-skinned are these InGodWeTrust yahoos? FFRF puts up a rather subtle slogan -- even lower-key than the "Come To Church" bus ads the Anglican Church runs up here -- and these guys go ballistic and run this outrageous piece of hate-speech? Talk about over the top reaction.
Wow!
Read the comments at the linked site; not only are these people completely deluded, they're also incredibly idiotic; I had no idea that Pascal's Wager was so convincing for so many people.
http://propterhoc.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/pascals-wager/
When asked about the question, "Why do atheists hate America?" Nedd gave a quick reply: "That's what we're trying to figure out. We don't know the answer."
I always thought the line about "why do xyz hate America?" was a joke parody thing that bloggers tossed around, but that there weren't any actual real people out there in the world who thought goofy stuff like that. I guess I was wrong.
He said his group is not saying the atheists are anti-American. However, they appear to be, he said. Still, he said, "this is a free country and everyone is free to believe what he or she chooses."
Err, I guess I was right after all. Hrrrrm... I dunno.
I always thought the line about "why do xyz hate America?" was a joke parody thing that bloggers tossed around, but that there weren't any actual real people out there in the world who thought goofy stuff like that.
Does Ann Coulter qualify as an actual real person or not?
I hate it mainly because of the stupid.
The problem with Christians is that they serve 2 masters - their god and their government. But since their god's punishment is way harsher (eternity in hell) than their government's (months/years in prison) if a Christian has to choose between disobeying his god or disobeying his government, he'll probably choose to disobey his government. Therefore Christians should not be trusted since they can betray their country at any time.
Robert M.
Does Ann Coulter qualify as an actual real person or not?
Yes but she doesn't ever believe what she says about anything. What she says and what she thinks are two different things. (I would guess.) Same goes for the InGodWeTrust sign guy, according to his own admission.
Both are probably stirring up trouble trying to get some extra cash or attention or something.
I used to say that there's no such thing as a stupid question. I take that back.
Post a Comment