I surmised as much. Please email me though as the further this thread goes down on Malkin’s main page the less inclined I (and anyone else) am inclined to look at it. Thank you!

I’m not ignoring you, I just have too much to do….

I’ll get a hold of you when I can….

-Steve
(I am watching the Spitz go down in flames, however!)

Very well said.

Despite being an atheist I can agree wholeheartedly with everything James said.

My caveat:

Or, not, or perhaps it is all simply “supernatural” and “un-explainable” and thus outside the realm of reasoned debate and science.

ensures that James and I are NOT at odds on anything other than faith or perhaps a philosophical disagreement. I can accept the notion that “God” has a mechanism and mindset that completely eludes man. In fact I did ascribe to that notion for a very long time.

I too, am frustrated and offended by zealotry. ID “theory” is poisonous and will undermine the education of the youth of America.

I say this as a black American of faith who’s steeped in science and a background in oceanography, I find this whole argument deeply disheartening. Religion has FAR more important fish to fry in terms of teaching kids morality in the face of the lack of it on MTV/Spike and TV/movies and wild street culture than debate on the mechanism God uses in creation. I am _offended_ off the wall when zealots tell me that sincere unbiased experiments and investigation into the structure of the universe are all lies. It makes me go crazy. Pitting religion against science is just as bad as people today twisting science to bolster a political agenda, saying the results of experiments are all wrong/lies because it’d disprove God’s existance when it’d then mean that God is one cruel prankster with our experiments and our heads. This quibble — to be so presumptuous that Man knows exactly how God works — gives religion a bad name and small wonder libs and the general public regards and presents people of faith as flakes and steamroller over us social policies detrimental to us all. Faith-based theories (not the same as teaching about religion) should be taught at church and home and science-based ones in academia. If your faith’s strong and morally solid and positive enough then it shouldn’t have to be worried of being “undermined” by science.

Let’s get off this ivory-tower train and focus on competing against the rappers and liberals for the minds, morals and souls of our children! THAT’s where faith earns its keep!

Amen!

James Greenidge
Queens NY

If any of you are still reading and you have concerns about any of the examples cited above by Soap, please email me at:

zeroang3L@hotmail.com

Yes, that is a ‘3′ in place of an ‘e’. ‘3′ and then the letter ‘L’. Many commonly mistake it for zeroangel or zeroang-thirty-one. It is zeroang-three-L.

SHoward: I was particularly enjoying our discussion as it made me ponder interesting scenarios. I would like to continue this off fourm.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

I do not have the inclination to go point to point with you on every single issue you cite that is or has been addressed elsewhere (a simple google search on your own will be enough). My purpose here is not to try and convince you, nor is it to try and one up you. If you would like to take that as me being unable to, please do, it matters not to me.

The reason I am not so inclined is because I do not think you are even reading what I write. It seems to me you are using equivocation re: my use of the word “gap.” I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but it doesn’t matter.

Further, the simple fact that you posted something that you cited as supporting evidence and it turns out you didn’t even read it (as evidenced by it refuting your claim) leads me to believe you only read what you want to read.

I don’t doubt you when you say you were an atheist. But I do doubt your understanding of the logic associated with it.

Evolution is an explanation concerning the natural and physical world. It CAN be tested by empirical evidence; in fact, some of your issues are empirical evidence. Evolution, by definition, is science. It can be critiqued, modified, adjusted and even disproved by examining evidence. If you want to throw out evolution based on evidence I have no problem with that. The problem comes in as follows:

“Intelligent Design” necessarily requires intervention of a divine being (or aliens, but I don’t think that’s what you espouse). It is not a scientific theory and it is an updated version of Zeus throwing lightning bolts. It is a theological trump card that ENDS debate and research, not expands it. What empirical test can we use to “test” for the existence of God? Answer that, and you will instantly become the most famous person on Earth. Tell me how I am supposed to disprove “God”?

Thus, ID is NOT science, by definition.

All the “evidence” against evolution and a “Old Earth” amounts to “gaps” that simply have yet to be explained. Nothing outright refutes evolution, or in this geological example, refutes an “Old Earth.”

Ummm, doesn’t the “gap theory” belong to evolutionists? How about “punctuated equilibrium”? These two reasons alone give trouble to evolution. If we can’t explain it, we throw something at it and teach it as fact. NOT SICENCE!!!

On the flipside, those “scientists” that purport a theory of a “Young Earth” and creationism simply throw out any evidence to the contrary and make some claim that “OK that part is micro-evolution” or, even worse, “God made it that way to test our faith.”

…and I would have to say the same has happened with Scientists on your side of the debate. I love the example of 7 bone sent off to 4 evolutionists for a sketch of what the “humanoid” must have looked like. All very different. Two with normal human arm lengths and two with ape arm lengths. Soft science has been applied to evolution and been claimed as “science” for years. Manhattan Man and his family were drawn from a single tooth that turned out to be that of an extinct pig which later turned out to not be extinct. The examples of the lack of “science” have plagued evolution from the very beginning. Yet, you want to hold evolution up to be taught as science because there is “nothing better”. SCIENCE???

As for statistics / probabilities, yes I understand very well. Math was my major. A claim that “evolution is statistically impossible” either simplifies evolution to something it isn’t (e.g. Bus/Tornado/junkyard) or fails to appreciate the vast numbers we are dealing with.

The probability that even a single strand of DNA can form in the billions of years of life on earth is so beyond possible it removes science from evolution. Take the protein connections between the double helix itself. Mathematically, there is about 1×10 to the 80th power possibilities. That is more seconds than in 4 billion years. This is just one of many stumbling blocks for evolution. When the complexity of a single cell is studied, the whole plan falls apart at the seams.

The “irreducibility complexity” argument always amounts to a “gap” and creationists simply move from one example to the next as each is explained.

As each gap is explained? Like the gap theory is an explanation? Come on, be real. Some of the “explanations” do not deserve study. How do we explain vertical fossils? You know, trees that are vertical in coal which, according to evolutionists takes millions of years to form? How about living fossils that have NOT changed (evolved) over millions of years? How about why in the world would anything evolve past phytoplankton which gets its energy from the sun and reproduces? It seems perfect enough. Why do we not have chloroform as it is way more efficient than eating? How about; how does a living cell come into existence with all of its complexities including the ability to reproduce? Talk about gap creationists have yet to explain or just – explain away (like, the planet was “seeded” by an asteroid or meteor…). Talk about things evolutionists cannot observe or see or produce in a lab experiment!

Finally, the ID hypothesis cannot be tested, as such, it is NOT science.

By your final statement, neither can evolution (“be tested”). It should not be in a science class but a philosophy class. It takes just as much “faith” to believe in it as it does to believe GOD created it. Since the Bible continues to be proven right (on many levels) it might just be right on all and who needs an experiment to believe all of it. You would have me believe all of evolution because “there is nothing better. HA, that’s a laugh.

I have been an atheist and an evolutionist. Given the choice of what I was taught as fact and what I have learned from not taking what I was taught as “gospel”, I will take what I have learned with my open mind. The evidence (the lack thereof actually) for evolution in my mind, keeps it in the toilet where it belongs.

*smile*. Maybe I should make an honest effort to find something else constructive to do instead of waiting for results from others and/or going to my project lead every 15mins reminding him that I am waiting for results from others. Perhaps I will start a new project ahead of schedule.

In any case, if we are to consider “Intelligent Design” into reasoned debate we MUST enter the God/Atheist debate. Either that, or start talking about UFOs. Neither of which are science.

I wasn’t trying to enter the God/Atheist debate. That one would never end….(not that this one necessarily will )

Be back when I can….

Whilst pondering this, I have something else that occurred to me that I’d like to share:

If ever the day comes when “God” appears in the sky, announces his return and begins harvesting souls I will be among many others (I presume) to state that it appears we are being invaded by an advanced race and we are equivalent to Native Americans facing the arrival of European explorers.

Then, perhaps later, if I find myself “dead”, I am likely to postulate that I have been imprisoned within my own mind or somehow “moved” to a type of “zoo” created for our (humankind’s) benefit and made to resemble the afterlife.

So, assuming I am wrong, and it IS in fact the afterlife, I guess then there are two options: Heaven or Hell (other religions have more in varying degrees of the two absolutes).

So, if I find myself in hell, one could say, what a cruel “God” indeed. He created me to be, by my nature, a skeptic, and knowing this, condemned me to hell at the instant of my creation. If He didn’t then He isn’t omniscient, and thus, does not fit the definition of “God.”

On the flipside, finding myself in “Heaven” I will no doubt spend eternity pestering St. Peter, Jesus, God, or various other folk, to answer my questions and provide a rational explanation for my current predicament.

Or, not, or perhaps it is all simply “supernatural” and “un-explainable” and thus outside the realm of reasoned debate and science.

Good morning and thank you. I feel much better this morning thanks to antibiotics.

Re: Milton, I am not sure if Dawkins directly took on Milton in some other paper, I might have to research that further. Robert Todd Carol apparently did though:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html

Not so much directly related at The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism but rather, at Milton’s website (which appears to be down) / book: Alternative Science.

If Milton has been shown to be apt to logical fallacies in several other areas, his credibility is, of course, called into question.

I am not certain, but I believe Dawkins would just as soon debate Milton as debate someone that believes the Earth is flat. Milton, after all, is a proponent of a few other things like, the paranormal, and UFOs.

what makes you think it is going to be explained by evolution?

Well, because every other “gap” in the history of mankind that used a divine being as an explanation eventually was shown to be explained by science. I have no reason to believe this trend will not continue.

Taking the stance that we will one day be able to empirically test the existence of a supernatural or divine being does not hold up because then that being would no longer be “supernatural.” “Supernatural” means above or outside of nature, hence it cannot be tested empirically and is not science. If one were to take the stand that “God” does in fact exist in a tangible way that can be tested empirically that would open up a whole slew of paradoxes (can God make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it? etc.)

didn’t I read in the link you provided that scientists studying evolution are the ones that stated different species couldn’t mate?

Here:

A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species.

Key word is viable.

If they were both extinct today, would we be concluding that dobermans evolved from chihuahuas?

Would we? Or would we correctly deduce that they are different branches emanating from another common ancestor?

I may get to Milton after I read, “Liberal Fascism.”

Slow at work for me today and yesterday, waiting on results from other folks before I can continue.

You may not feel fulfilled by this response, but after reviewing your provided links, It’s what I’ve got.

Firstly, I have read Dawkins criticisms of Milton before. Did you notice that Dawkins failed to give specific, referenced examples? His entire “review” was basically a long screed about how Milton should never have been published.

I have read the book, and believe me, I ain’t no pushover. It is incredibly well thought out with source information and examples given. It certainly isn’t any Walt Brown, who tends to jump to unsibstantiated conclusions.

Yes, Milton is a science writer, which means he has been reporting of scientific discovery and debate for his career. He’s not exactly an unreliable source.

After reading the piece at pnas.org, the one thing that stands out is how many times that scientific article used the word suggests. As you pointed out, the mystery of the bacterial motor is as yet unexplained. So here’s a question: what makes you think it is going to be explained by evolution?

You’ve correctly pointed out before that since the actions of a divine hand cannot be empirically tested, we should not consider it science, (a statement I don’t necessarily disagree with), but that doesn’t mean we will never be able to. You see? I just used the same arguement evolutionists use when confronted with something they cannot explain — “I’m sure we will one day.”

Finally, the finch info did come from Milton. However, didn’t I read in the link you provided that scientists studying evolution are the ones that stated different species couldn’t mate? I know we have actual examples of species that can, but my point was this: the different finches on the Gallapogos are different variations, but are they really different birds?

Think of it this way: what is the difference between a Doberman and a chihuahua? They’re both dogs (sort of), but look at them. If they were both extinct today, would we be concluding that dobermans evolved from chihuahuas?

Before condemening Milton on the word of Dawkins, try reading a couple of chapters of his book. It is a good read whether you agree with it or not.

Hope you fell better, off to work for me…

…

The district ordered 14-year-old freshmen to take a seminar that amounted to homosexual indoctrination, she said, and had them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents.

Remember how the Feds used to kidnap indian children, send them to boarding schools, cut off their hair, beat them for speaking their native language and indoctrinate into a foreign religion?

Remember how the government did everything possible to alienate these children from their cultural heritage and turn them against the traditional way of life practiced by their ancestors?

That’s exactly what’s happening to the rest of you today.

Enjoy : )