tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2190553154508634440..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: How Do Intelligent Design Creationists Define "Creationism"?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52221900617615972732012-09-22T17:46:31.122-04:002012-09-22T17:46:31.122-04:00I have never thought to mix together my religion a...I have never thought to mix together my religion and science. My view about biology is exceptional because of the following Annila´s (difficult) theories<br /><br />http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/<br /><br />and intuitively to the whole universum (to biology too) generalized Feynman´s path-integral (of which is a good explanation in Mlodinow´s and Hawking´s book). I therefore defined myself as an intelligent cell (IC) -theorist.<br />(My real field is not biology but mathematics etc.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11105201326225318122012-09-21T08:49:08.088-04:002012-09-21T08:49:08.088-04:00Globe Trotter says,
Larry - there you go again be...Globe Trotter says,<br /><br /><i>Larry - there you go again being disrespectful to a proponent of intelligent design. </i><br /><br />I'm constantly disrespectful of IDiots. If you're going to document every instance of that then I'll have to make a new post just for you. I've posted 4,200 articles so I bet there are at least 4,000 examples of my disrespect for Intelligent Design Creationists. If you post links to all of them then that will make 8,000 examples on my blog.<br /><br />Go for it. <br /><br /><i>Proponents of intelligent design theory are not automatically "creationists" and it is a lazy mistake to label them so because it means your job is done - you don't have to debate with them on the merits of their scientific research! </i><br /><br />It may have escaped your notice that I spend a great deal of time debating the merits, or lack of merits, of scientific research with proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism. I've also debated scientific issues with Theistic Evolution Creationists. I've even, on occasion, debated science issues with Young Earth Creationists. <br /><br />Your statement is ridiculous. You should pay closer attention to my posts. <br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46098206114754434342012-09-21T08:28:50.755-04:002012-09-21T08:28:50.755-04:00Globe Trotter:
"Proponents of intelligent de...Globe Trotter:<br /><br />"Proponents of intelligent design theory are not automatically "creationists" and it is a lazy mistake to label them so because it means your job is done - you don't have to debate with them on the merits of their scientific research!"<br /><br />Yes, that would be quite difficult — even <i>finding</i> meritorious scientific research from intelligent design advocates to debate about would be like going on a hunt for Prester John's kingdom.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3428957917011216652012-09-21T08:23:22.901-04:002012-09-21T08:23:22.901-04:00"There is nothing special about you to justif..."There is nothing special about you to justify to call you any differently."<br /><br />Despite thinking that the significant majority of evolutionary change is due to a mechanism that wasn't discovered (by Sewall Wright) until half a century after Darwin's death and which Darwin never himself proposed? It's more reasonable to call such a person a "Darwinist", even though Darwin only proposed natural selection and sexual selection, and his name has become identified with natural selection especially? That's not going to be in the slightest way misleading?Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7112203273483724472012-09-21T05:38:58.437-04:002012-09-21T05:38:58.437-04:00Globe Trotter said:
"Proponents of intellig...Globe Trotter said: <br /><br />"Proponents of intelligent design theory are not automatically "creationists" and it is a lazy mistake to label them so because it means your job is done - you don't have to debate with them on the merits of their scientific research!"<br /><br />Surely you jest?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81133239350583328132012-09-18T19:48:40.220-04:002012-09-18T19:48:40.220-04:00If so perhaps this superior civilization made vide...If so perhaps this superior civilization made videotapes of earth's biological etc beginnings!<br />If they are monitoring us they could help progress us all by sending these videos to youtube or something!<br /><br />Its a funny thing to me how easily evolutionists etc drop the bubbles to buffaloes idea if they can invoke seeding from outer space.<br />On old Star Trek they mostly said we evolved but sometimes they said our first people came from elsewhere.<br />Its like thee is a great unconscience desire for any explanation except the historic in the writing's.!<br /><br />Sorry folks. Ain't nobody out there. <br />Its just the first eternity we were to use. Then the fall came and eternity went elsewhere!Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26242864209710667312012-09-18T16:31:55.697-04:002012-09-18T16:31:55.697-04:00@Piotr Gasiorowski
You are wrong. Dinosaurs and O...@Piotr Gasiorowski<br /><br />You are wrong. Dinosaurs and Ostriches belongs to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind" rel="nofollow">different kinds</a>.<br /><br />Ask Denny or Mr. Byers.<br /><br />;PArek Wittbrodthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111672656316139254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28685486228885768462012-09-18T14:04:30.014-04:002012-09-18T14:04:30.014-04:00Larry - there you go again being disrespectful to ...Larry - there you go again being disrespectful to a proponent of intelligent design. <br /><br />Creationism could be taken loosely as the idea that life on earth and the universe was created. Which would put even Richard Dawkins into a creationist category, according to his comments in Expelled:<br /><br />"It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."<br /><br />I would define creationism as many refer to it - a belief in the account of creation as detailed in the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible.<br /><br />Proponents of intelligent design theory are not automatically "creationists" and it is a lazy mistake to label them so because it means your job is done - you don't have to debate with them on the merits of their scientific research! Globe Trotternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5917389407652150502012-09-18T13:26:13.299-04:002012-09-18T13:26:13.299-04:00Who frigg'n cares? Mormons are the Borg. Resis...Who frigg'n cares? Mormons are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Ask Obama's mother, Romney's father-in-law and Pope John Paul II.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_deadPiotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2247238288819669332012-09-18T13:14:35.199-04:002012-09-18T13:14:35.199-04:00And Mr Byers is wrong about dino-riding not having...And Mr Byers is wrong about dino-riding not having been practised since the fall. People occasionally ride dinosaurs (theropods) even today:<br /><br />http://webassets.scea.com/forums/35957_Ostrich-Riding_20110725579_5186.jpgPiotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45270598476041104162012-09-18T09:45:51.722-04:002012-09-18T09:45:51.722-04:00Claudiu, I don't imagine that any one of us be...Claudiu, I don't imagine that any one of us believes that organizations - political, religious, scientific, otherwise - are 'promoting evil for the sake of evil'. I think none of us is referring to 'evil'; we are referring to damage. We have different perspectives as to what is causing that damage, and perhaps as to what, specifically, that damage is. But, speaking for myself, I don't get the impression that Steve or Georgi are demonizing religion, and I hope that is not the impression I give in regard to science.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81851758129934570122012-09-18T08:47:51.225-04:002012-09-18T08:47:51.225-04:00@Georgi, andyboerger, steve
I have yet to come ac...@Georgi, andyboerger, steve<br /><br />I have yet to come across any current mainstream cultural, social, or even political platform that is explicitly promoting evil for the sake of evil.<br /><br />Take, for example, the video example you posted above. Possibly, it is no more than a sensible (form the producer’s perspective) marketing approach of selling some videos and making a living from it. Obviously, you would not be able to sell a product/service like that without appealing emotionally and culturally to your potential audience. And this scenario might apply to many other ‘evils’ you describe in your comments.<br /><br />In my Open Letter above, I bring forward this very fundamental issue when I say:<br /> <br /><i>“Unfortunately, an entire generation of scientists and clinicians in the field have developed their professional career under the umbrella of the protein misfolding concept and prion hypothesis. So, their reluctance to engage in an open and inclusive discussion about the flaws of these working hypotheses is somewhat understandable”</i><br /><br />Let’s say that the <b>protein misfolding concept</b> and <b>the prion hypothesis</b> are indeed flawed. And, consider that you are among the prevalent group of thousands of scientists who have built their professional career working on and promoting these misleading working hypotheses.<br /><br />What will you do? <br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82258224380274485862012-09-18T07:01:21.495-04:002012-09-18T07:01:21.495-04:00Re John Pieret
I rather suspect that Francis Coll...Re John Pieret<br /><br />I rather suspect that Francis Collins practices methodological naturalism in his medical research. SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90016415366883566092012-09-18T06:58:54.903-04:002012-09-18T06:58:54.903-04:00cave men never exited or rather poor sampling of m...<i> cave men never exited or rather poor sampling of mankind at any time.</i><br /><br />So, according to Booby Byers, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Home Ergaster, Australopithecus Afarensis, etc. never existed. All the scientists who have studied these species are wrong and Booby Byers, who doesn't know his posterior orifice from a hole in the ground is right, based on the writings of iron age goat herders. Ho, ho, ho and need I say ha, ha, ha.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83161617637137887762012-09-18T02:42:10.519-04:002012-09-18T02:42:10.519-04:00I don't know. Do you agree that all Mormons ar...I don't know. Do you agree that all Mormons are Christians but not all Christians are Mormons? If you do then how is it possible that the Catholic church does not consider Mormons to be Christians?anon101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21953351278239926912012-09-18T00:34:14.715-04:002012-09-18T00:34:14.715-04:00Definition.
Mankind has always believed a thinkin...Definition.<br /><br />Mankind has always believed a thinking being, greater then we think, created the universe and earth.<br /><br />Amongst those who study nature or think about there are contentions on the origins of the universe.<br />There are those who say this BEING never existed. Then people say this BEING does exist but there is no evidence in the universe for this being.<br />There are those who say there is this evidence or fingerprints for this BEING.<br /><br />Then people say there is no evidence and evidence against this creator as described in the historical writings called Genesis.<br />There are people who say there is evidence for these writings being true and other ideas are untrue that contradict Genesis.<br /><br />All those who contend and defend for this CREATOR are creationists since they argue against someone denying some or all of the creator's acts.<br />There are several species with names and descriptions that classify them.<br /><br />If folks lump them together then Yes its poor research but one should be glad to be in such company of modern revolutionaries.<br /><br />We were here first and will remain at the end.<br />We are the good guys and a wee bit smarter.<br /><br />By the way. Remember the old saying.<br />If your not riding the dinosaur then your being run over by it!<br />(Somewhere in Genesis it says this! can't quote chapter and verse)<br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75273609552174567922012-09-18T00:19:41.010-04:002012-09-18T00:19:41.010-04:00I am YEC and the only time we could ride dinosaurs...I am YEC and the only time we could ride dinosaurs was before the fall and then they didn't look like they did later as killers. cave men never exited or rather poor sampling of mankind at any time.<br /><br />In the study of nature there has been and is a conclusion that a thinking being, greater by far then our thinking, created the universe and earth.<br />Everyone in history thought so.<br />so thinking people assert or defend that this BEING did create the universe.<br />If they say he did or didn't there is no fingerprints to tell so.<br />So people defend the universe has the fingerprints of this creator.<br />Then people deny its as the historic writings teach in gEnesis etc.<br />So people defend these historic writings as true and attack opposing ideas to these writings.<br /><br />If its about a creator and the contention is against those who deny the creator then the defenders of the creator are creationists.<br />Damn proud of it! The smarter chaps we think!<br /><br />There are important segregated species of the creationists as can be shown by different species names and descriptions.<br /><br />If there is lumping together then all creationists should be proud in such company of revolutionaries. <br /><br />P.S. Remember the old saying. If your not riding the dino your be run over!Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73985377590427303142012-09-18T00:17:44.672-04:002012-09-18T00:17:44.672-04:00I am YEC and the only time we could ride dinosaurs...I am YEC and the only time we could ride dinosaurs was before the fall and then they didn't look like they did later as killers. cave men never exited or rather poor sampling of mankind at any time.<br /><br />In the study of nature there has been and is a conclusion that a thinking being, greater by far then our thinking, created the universe and earth.<br />Everyone in history thought so.<br />so thinking people assert or defend that this BEING did create the universe.<br />If they say he did or didn't there is no fingerprints to tell so.<br />So people defend the universe has the fingerprints of this creator.<br />Then people deny its as the historic writings teach in gEnesis etc.<br />So people defend these historic writings as true and attack opposing ideas to these writings.<br /><br />If its about a creator and the contention is against those who deny the creator then the defenders of the creator are creationists.<br />Damn proud of it! The smarter chaps we think!<br /><br />There are important segregated species of the creationists as can be shown by different species names and descriptions.<br /><br />If there is lumping together then all creationists should be proud in such company of revolutionaries. <br /><br />P.S. Remember the old saying. If your not riding the dino your be run over!Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58790779550589065812012-09-17T20:15:18.953-04:002012-09-17T20:15:18.953-04:00Georgi, certainly there have been civilizations th...Georgi, certainly there have been civilizations that have collapsed, many of them due to territorial overreach. But it is erroneous of you and Steve to just assume that our current predicament is nothing more than that played out to its logical endgame. Those collapses did not result in nuclear fallout, nuclear and toxic waste that we don't know what to do with, the hole in the Ozone Layer, 'dead zones' in the oceans, acid rain, etc. etc. The modern age of technology has devastated the environment. About this you and I are in agreement.<br /><br />As for not blaming science; well, yes. Science cannot be blamed, but it CAN be implicated because its fingerprints are all over the problems we face. Most of them originated in laboratories, not churches. Most of them were developed by people who had years of scientific training, not seminarians. It is disingenuous of you to separate science out of its results so conveniently. <br />Do you do the same for medical advancements? Have you never used them in an argument to vouch for the benefits of science?<br />Do you make the same distinction when arguing that just believing in God does not cause one to crash planes into buildings, or to feel 'exceptional'? There are many kinds of religion, many kinds of beliefs.<br />Which leads to your point about exceptionalism. Here I am in agreement with you, in that it is foolish and wrong. But I am not convinced that it is a major reason why we are 'collectively in such complete denial about the situation'. I'll go with you as far as agreeing in the possibility that it plays some sort of significant role. But the biggest reason that I see is that people are so shortsighted. It is possible to feel that one is exceptional, a special creature of God, and still treat the earth right. But if people are generally shortsighted, and are led by shortsighted governments and shortsighted business leaders who champion the creed of 'grow or die' (which should really be called 'grow AND die'), then you're in trouble.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42833557288873529622012-09-17T19:49:02.633-04:002012-09-17T19:49:02.633-04:00But you and Larry are ordinary Evolutionists / Dar...<i>But you and Larry are ordinary Evolutionists / Darwinists. There is nothing special about you to justify to call you any differently</i><br /><br />Would you agree that all Darwinists are evolutionists but not all evolutionists are Darwinists? If you do then it is at least <i>possible</i> for Larry to be a Gouldian pluralist evolutionist but not a Darwinist, isn't it? This may seem trivial to intelligent design/creationists just as the difference between Methodists and Congregationalists may seem trivial to Muslims, for whom they are all just Christians but it's not.<br /><br />BTW, brawny British chips are vastly superior to anorexic French Fries.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72510805007328989512012-09-17T14:16:09.087-04:002012-09-17T14:16:09.087-04:00Well, I tried and you don't care. Fine. It'...Well, I tried and you don't care. Fine. It's your choice to remain uneducated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36959000592644867272012-09-17T14:06:28.828-04:002012-09-17T14:06:28.828-04:00Look Negative Entropy,
the Americans have a stran...Look Negative Entropy,<br /><br />the Americans have a strange habit. They call toilets restrooms although that is clearly wrong. Because restrooms are not toilets. At the same token the Australians call flip flops thongs. Which is clearly wrong because thongs are not flip flops. The British call French fries chips which is clearly wrong because chips are clearly not French fries.<br /><br />But you and Larry are ordinary Evolutionists / Darwinists. There is nothing special about you to justify to call you any differently.anon101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16086318671785237562012-09-17T13:30:03.609-04:002012-09-17T13:30:03.609-04:00@andyboerger
I don't think you know the histo...@andyboerger<br /><br />I don't think you know the history of the planet very well - the overshoot and collapse cycle has played itself out numerous times on a local level. But when you have a global civilization, things are different. <br /><br />You can not blame science for that though - science is the best tool available that we have for understanding the world around us. What we do with that understanding is a completely different subject. Science should not be confused with technology and it most definitely should not be confused with the use of that technology. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science - yes, the two things are closely related and develop hand in hand but they are not at all the same thing. Science provides you the knowledge you need to build a self destructive technology, it also provides you with the understanding of the consequences if you use it. Science provided us with the knowledge needed to take over the planet and it was science that provided us with the understanding of where that trajectory will take us in the future - all those ecologists, atmospheric and planetary scientists, paleontologists, and other doomsayers are scientists who reach these conclusions based on the science they're doing. <br /><br />Finally, that's an objection that completely sidesteps the main point of what I posted above - the one about human exceptionalism, which is a core part of religious doctrine but is incompatible both with proper understanding of evolution and with proper understanding of the planetary ecosystem and is a major reason why we are collectively in such a complete denial about the situation.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80962444605248643792012-09-17T12:02:05.642-04:002012-09-17T12:02:05.642-04:00sorry, my error. What I meant to write was 'ex...sorry, my error. What I meant to write was 'existential crisis of our own making'.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23668856119600232022012-09-17T11:45:28.653-04:002012-09-17T11:45:28.653-04:00But we did not face an existential crisis until th...<i> But we did not face an existential crisis until the Industrial Revolution. </i><br /><br />Not true.<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10231.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com