25 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombI started. It's a crashing bore. Nor is my opinion improved by views (echoed by bbarr's illustrious peers) such as this:
The one on God is feeble? Have you actually read it?
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a preordained set of conclusions at which he's determined to arrive. Consequently, Dawkins uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there and the merit of various arguments appears judged largely by where they lead.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
25 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFirstly, that is exactly the stance of religion! First assume that God exists, then mould everything round to be the work of God. Perhaps Dawkins has learnt some lessons from religion.
I started. It's a crashing bore. Nor is my opinion improved by views (echoed by bbarr's illustrious peers) such as this:
One reason for the lack of extended argument in The God Delusion is clear: Dawkins doesn't seem very good at it. Indeed he suffers from several problems when attempting to reason philosophically. The most obvious is that he has a here they lead.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/darwinists_have_different_take.html
Secondly, it is hardly surprising that Casey Luskin should put forward such a view considering he is a founding member of 'The intelligent design and evolution awareness center' A partisan review hardly constitutes an all out critisism of Dawkins work does it?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/754
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombYes, I think he has.
Firstly, that is exactly the stance of religion! First assume that God exists, then mould everything round to be the work of God. Perhaps Dawkins has learnt some lessons from religion.
Secondly, it is hardly surprising that Casey Luskin should put forward such a view considering she is a founding member of 'The intelligent design and evolution awarene ...[text shortened]... tisism of Dawkins work does it?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/754
Those aren't Casey Luskin's views--they are H. Allen Orr's (see edit).
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by Marinkatomb"I can only guess but the guess seems plain: Dembski's defense of interventionism reveals, I suspect, both the ID's movement's ideological roots and its political agenda. The movement emerged, after all, out of a Judeo-Christian tradition that demands, or at least historically favors, an interventionist deity. But more important, I suspect Dembski and much of the ID community are turned off by the fact that the Einsteinian view demands no change, much less revolution, in our practice of science. The Einsteinian view is insufficiently radical—too tame, too palatable, and too inconsequential for Dembski and his fellow travelers. It is one thing to stand in awe before the harmony of natural law. It is quite another to topple methodological naturalism, puncture materialism, and re-write the textbooks of Ohio and Texas. I can guess which Dembski prefers."
Quite right! Let's see what he has to say on Creationism..
http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html
Orr is no Creationist.
25 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagewww.evolutionnews.org
Yes, I think he has.
Those aren't Casey Luskin's views--they are H. Allen Orr's (see edit).
Contributors
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3837
Michael Behe - Author of "Darwin's Black Box discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems."
Cornelius G. Hunter - "...author of the award-winning Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science, and the forthcoming 2006 book Science's Blindspot"
Casey Luskin - "Casey has spoken at numerous conferences on intelligent design, including debating intelligent design at Scripps Institution for Oceanography;"
Dr.Steve Meyer - "Dr. Meyer has recently co-written or edited two books: Darwinism, Design, and Public Education with Michigan State University Press and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (Ignatius 2000). "
Paul Nelson - He has published articles in such journals as Biology & Philosophy, Zygon, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Touchstone, and chapters in the anthologies Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence, and Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. His forthcoming monograph, On Common Descent, critically evaluates the theory of common descent, and is being edited for the series Evolutionary Monographs. Nelson is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.
Jay Richards - "His masters thesis (Th.M., Calvin Theological Seminary) treated philosopher of science Michael Polanyi. From 1996-1998, he was executive and associate editor of The Princeton Theological Review, and president of the Charles Hodge Society at Princeton Theological Seminary. "
Jonathan Wells - "Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University."
John West - "Dr. West has written or edited numerous books, including The Politics of Revelation & Reason: Religion and Civic Life in the New Nation, The Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politic...,"
Jonathan Witt - "He has written on aesthetics for Literature and Theology and The Princeton Theological Review, and currently he is exploring how Darwinists employ widely discredited and even contradictory aesthetic presuppositions in their arguments against a creator."
Now, is it just me or is this foundation specifically set up to put forward the case for Intelligent design? Looking at all it's contributors, that is certainly the conclusion i am coming to. It is hardly surprising Dawkins receives a lot of criticism here now is it...
25 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombFirstly, that is exactly the stance of religion! First assume that God exists, then mould everything round to be the work of God. Perhaps Dawkins has learnt some lessons from religion.
Firstly, that is exactly the stance of religion! First assume that God exists, then mould everything round to be the work of God. Perhaps Dawkins has learnt some lessons from religion.
Secondly, it is hardly surprising that Casey Luskin should put forward such a view considering he is a founding member of 'The intelligent design and evolution awarenes tisism of Dawkins work does it?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/754
I don't agree with , at least for Islam. When I studied Islam in high school and university (my high school and university were religion ones where we study more islamic science than any other students in Egypt) we studied logical explainations for every point in our faith. You may not accept that logical explaination, but the idea is that we didn't assume that GOD exist then build every thing about it.
Back to natural selection , you said before there is no need for the designer or to believe that there is a designer or case, which I don't agree with you. If you are making a logical explaination to everything based on scientific theories then you have to make it complete.
Lets make it clear:
"There are some laws, systems which the natural selection process is based upon. Those systems appears to me requires some sort of designer , but you say no, part of my logical evidence for GOD existance is based on this idea, that there must an intellegent being that designed this, or designed what made this to happen. So if you say no that is not necessary then you have to explain it. Saying that there is no evidence that GOD exist to disprove my evidence is ciruclar resoning".
I hope you forgive me if I made any English mistakes (it always happen to me), or if you already answered this and I didn't read it.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou say that 'it appears to you' that a designer is needed. Then you imply that that is actually a 'logical' deduction. Where is the logic?
"There are some laws, systems which the natural selection process is based upon. Those systems appears to me requires some sort of designer , but you say no, part of my logical evidence for GOD existance is based on this idea, that there must an intellegent being that designed this, or designed what made this to happen. So if you say no that is not necessar ...[text shortened]... Saying that there is no evidence that GOD exist to disprove my evidence is ciruclar resoning".
You must either show good reason why a designer is required or accept that there is not logical need for such a designer.
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyWe're going round in circles here, you are right. Let me think over your statement a little, perhaps I can put my view in a better way... 🙂
[b]Firstly, that is exactly the stance of religion! First assume that God exists, then mould everything round to be the work of God. Perhaps Dawkins has learnt some lessons from religion.
I don't agree with , at least for Islam. When I studied Islam in high school and university (my high school and university were religion ones where we study more i ...[text shortened]... h mistakes (it always happen to me), or if you already answered this and I didn't read it.[/b]
25 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombDid you notice that Orr is not one of the contributors? His views were appropriated by Casey Luskin in the first article I cited. As the article you cited clearly shows, Orr is not a Creationist at all. Rather, he points out perceived flaws in both Dawkins' and Dembkins' arguments. However, it seems that you don't want to see that your idol has feet of clay--an amusing parallel between Creationists and Dawkinites.
www.evolutionnews.org
Now, is it just me or is this foundation specifically set up to put forward the case for Intelligent design? Looking at all it's contributors, that is certainly the conclusion i am coming to. It is hardly surprising Dawkins receives a lot of criticism here now is it...
I put the God Delusion down because I'm not terribly interested in propaganda.
25 Jun 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI never said he was! He criticizes Dawkins for drawing conclusions that God does not exist from insufficient evidence. He may well do this, but religion pulls the existence of God from NO evidence. This is Dawkins central argument and it is, in my view, a convincing one. Maybe you don't like Dawkins way of putting it, that's fine. Orr obviously doesn't, but he has little time for Creationist explanations too, as my link shows...
Did you notice that Orr is not one of the contributors? His views were appropriated in the first article I cited. As the article you cited clearly shows, Orr is not a Creationist at all.
"I put the God Delusion down because I'm not terribly interested in propaganda."
That's ok, you can be forgiven for not liking it. There are large parts of it I found tiresome, mostly centered around him taking up arguments with the creationist press. He does come over as a partisan and the book is weaker for it. If you get through that though his argument is persuasive, assuming your totally in love with the idea of God, in which case you might as well read 101 Dalmatians...
I might just point out also that your original post cited http://www.evolutionnews.org/ which as i have already shown, is a partisan site in favour of creationism. If you're not interested in propoganda, why are you referencing this site?
25 Jun 07
Why there must be a designer? or at least why my mind came to this idea?
I explained before that I use evolution in my work. May be it doesn't reflect what happens really in life. But it at least made me form some ideas. In my expriments I (as a designer) must always be involved (even when an unsupervised search is required). At least in the early phases when we I set up how things works (physical or chemical laws in natural life), so there must be an explaination where these laws that control the operation came from.
You answer and scottishinnz's imply that the DNA structures and other laws may themseves evolved from another forms. But the question remains the same, how this other form is formed? And how the laws control them work the way they are?
When I talk about physical laws I'm talking about everything. Starting from the electorn and atom structure, and laws control their behaviour, going all the way up.
When we studied that we called it an endless chain of resoning, when the explaination of one leads you to another question ,and that is the logical problem that you have to solve, how to break this chain, because I will just accept just your words "There is no designer". If I did so then it will be another form of blind faith.
--------------
Also another observation I'm thinking about (i will try to describe it below) and I really wish if there is an answer of it, because I'm really don't know:
As I understand natural selection, and what I have an exprimental prove of in computer science so I don't have a problem with, is the part that describes the evolution in the same species.
But what I have a problem with cross species one, I mean , evolution from one species to another. Is there an evidence that 45 choromosoms species happened to evolve to 46 one. Because I have the same problem in my work , I can't do that.
If yes what was the mechanism to do that?
25 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt might be diverting to establish a religion centred on 101 Dalmations.
If you get through that though his argument is persuasive, assuming your [not] totally in love with the idea of God, in which case you might as well read 101 Dalmatians...
Dawkins essentially sets up a big straw man and congratulates himself for setting it on fire. You might not have a problem with this manifest dishonesty exacerbated by smugness and arrogance, but I don't think it terribly clever or funny. Shelley is cleverer (read the essay I cited); Monty Python, Terry Pratchett, Voltaire and a host of others are funnier. What I'd have enjoyed would be the hint of anything new being added to the debate, but there doesn't seem to be. Therefore Dawkins' book is a waste of my time. However I will read his other books--because I can learn from them.
25 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't rest my beliefs solely on God delusion, only a fool would base all their beliefs out of one book!
It might be diverting to establish a religion centred on 101 Dalmations.
Dawkins essentially sets up a big straw man and congratulates himself for setting it on fire. You might not have a problem with this manifest dishonesty exacerbated by smugness and arrogance, but I don't think it terribly clever or funny. Shelley is cleverer (read the essay I k is a waste of my time. However I will read his other books--because I can learn from them.
"What I'd have enjoyed would be the hint of anything new being added to the debate"
Coming from someone who ghas already admitted they haven't read the book, this statement doesn't really amount to much now does it? Read it first, then throw it out the window. 😛
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou still have not even given a hint as to why there should be a designer. Yes there are the laws of physics. Yes I don't know where they come from. But that does not logically lead to the question "Is there a designer?".
When we studied that we called it an endless chain of resoning, when the explaination of one leads you to another question ,and that is the logical problem that you have to solve, how to break this chain, because I will just accept just your words "There is no designer". If I did so then it will be another form of blind faith.
But what I have a problem with cross species one, I mean , evolution from one species to another. Is there an evidence that 45 choromosoms species happened to evolve to 46 one. Because I have the same problem in my work , I can't do that.
If yes what was the mechanism to do that?
It is the same mechanism of natural selection that you claim to already understand. Some people are born with an extra Chromosome. That is a fact. Many cancers (I believe all non-benign cancers) contain cells that have mixed up or wrong numbers of chromosomes. At some point one of these people who has extra chromosome is able to reproduce and as a result we get a new species of human with an extra chromosome.
You asked if there is evidence of new species with a different number of chromosomes than its parent species. The answer is yes.