Article <avm74jprm27d6nqvkhl39hsr4gnug4f68s@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<avm74jprm27d6nqvkhl39hsr4gnug4f68s@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:49:31 +0100
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 234
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <avm74jprm27d6nqvkhl39hsr4gnug4f68s@4ax.com>
References: <CAh_N.50541$P_e7.43732@fx09.iad> <q8fj3j5pou54cmk3r73aeirgp4gi8im5qv@4ax.com> <UIB_N.97515$lwqa.97359@fx18.iad> <2e5n3j1u9a0pdcmpd4m78l2dssq3kns552@4ax.com> <c_P_N.74962$Y79f.10441@fx16.iad> <jron3j1cooa42dl583dk20gdkrrbl9062p@4ax.com> <csc%N.84268$Fmd1.77811@fx13.iad> <u1tq3jh8l2ng3kunvsol4bmlf13o5c58i9@4ax.com> <yVt%N.21046$cjh6.19355@fx48.iad> <u8at3jpecus5t9t082ms7tpl9m6044r4cs@4ax.com> <8VY%N.22579$cjh6.10015@fx48.iad> <754957289ba1bbca7ca0e4ee849917ca@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="9338"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.individual.net
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rqPRpFa1MG1n97iVnXmDItm/2IM= sha256:irJU6icVtdznPx14DMbNNROY1L7ukYfRIg6oW3d9zrY=
Bytes: 16279

On Mon, 13 May 2024 19:47:30 +0000, b.schafer@ed.ac.uk (Burkhard)
wrote:

>Ron Dean wrote:
>
>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Vincent Haycock wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology and
>>>>>>> paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon
>>>>>>> version of science with nothing to support it.
>>>>>> Around the same time,
>>>>>>> I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found
>>>>>> positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
>>>>>> negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's backward.
>>>>>
>>>> That's the way you put it. Your first mind-set, as you stated it. You
>>>> became disillusioned with the flood and Christianity.
>>> 
>>> I said "because of my reading of geology and paleontology."
>>  >
>> Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
>>> 
>>>>   I developed a negative mind-set concerning the
>>>>> Flood and Christianity because of positive evidence for evolution and
>>>>> non-Christianity (which, in the United States is a huge first stepping
>>>>> stone to atheism per se).  And of course, as I said, I found negative
>>>>> evidence against the Flood to be voluminous, which is why I said it
>>>>> was cartoon-like.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing about
>>>>>> either the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, like I said I was a YEC, but the way you phrased it allowed for
>>>>> me to focus on that and not old-earth-creationism or Intelligent
>>>>> Design or any of those other "compromise" viewpoints that I never
>>>>> subscribed to.
>>>>>
>>>> ID stands on it's own, it's not a compromise between anything.
>>> 
>>> Right, but that's how we were taught when I was growing up.  My
>>> comment was supposed to be historical, not normative.
>>  >
>> There is a difference between Creationism and intelligent design, in 
>> that ID does not subscribe to the Genesis narrative, Both YEC  Old Earth 
>> creationism does. However, both creationism and ID both point to the 
>> same apparent flaws in Evolution and observe the same empirical evidence.
>>> 
>>>>>> ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
>>>>>> evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design
>>>>>> rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
>>>>>> interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does your paradigm explain the nested hierarchies that turn up in
>>>>> phylogenetic studies of living things?
>>>>>
>>>> This is an example of interpretation to fit into a paradigm.
>>> 
>>> So fit it in to your paradigm, then.  Why would the Designer create
>>> such an over-arching and ubiquitous phenomenon that is precisely what
>>> we would expect from evolution?
>>  >
>> This is a excellent example of the point I've been making nested 
>> hierarchies have been mutually seen as  strong empirical evidence for 
>> either Evolution or ID. The concept was was first conceived by a 
>> Christian who thought that an intelligent God would arrange animals and 
>> plants etc in an orderly   harmonic, systematic, logical and rational 
>> manor: and this he set out to find. This man was a Swedish scientist, 
>> Carolus Linnaeus. He organized organisms into groups which was known at 
>> the time and he characterized organisms into boxes within boxes within 
>> boxes IE groups. His nested hierarchies are incomplete by today 
>> standard, But the concept was his,  which he saw as evidence of  his God.
>> So, it appears the concept was appropriated by evolutionist from a 
>> creation concept.
>
>again, pretty much wrong in every respect. Let's start with the last
>sentence:
>
>yes, all science is cumulative, that is new theories are always built
>on old theories, and incorporate those parts that stood the test 
>of time. Which is why eg. Newtonian mechanics is now a proper part of
>the theory of relativity. And the same held true for Linnaeus, who did 
>not invent the concept of nested hierarchy, he merely applied it with
>particular rigour, and more data than anyone before him. The concept 
>goes back to Aristotle's categories and traveled to Linneaus via
>the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry. Who, funnily enough, was also the 
>author of a book titled "Against the Christians". So you could say he
>appropriated a pagan and/or atheist concept. 
>
>Linnaeus did not just apply the schema to biology and living things, but
>also to minerals, rocks, mountain formations and planets. But there it 
>didn't work and now is all but forgotten. 
>
>And there we have the next problem for you and
>your use of Linneaus. Linneaus believed of course that God had created
>everything, not just living things. Yet the nested hierarchies that we
>find in biology don't work for minerals. From an evolution perspective,
>that is of course no surprise: descent with modification will always
>create natural nested hierarchies, and few other things will. But if 
>nested hierarchies were also what we should expect from creation by God,
>then the absence of natural nested hierarchies in the rest of the world 
>should indicate that they are not the result of design, so Christianity
>would be disproven.
>
>Generally, Linnaeus SO doesn't work for you, on pretty much every level. 
>First, he grouped humans among the apes,these among quadrupeds, and these 
>in animalia. Yes, that worried him from a theological perspective, but 
>when attacked for it, he was adamant that that was just what the data 
>showed. He challenged his critics to find one objective fact that would 
>allow them to distinguish humans from other apes (Carl Linnaeus to Johann 
>Georg Gmelin, letter 25 February 1747) So going back
>to your nonsense about the alleged moral implications of nesting humans
>among other animal groups, Linneaus did this long before Darwin. 
>
>Oh, and as we are at it, unlike Darwin he also introduced subcategories
>(albeit as variations, not species) for humans, and not only that, 
>he ranked them. So Black africans according to his schema were:
>from their temperament phlegmatic and lazy, biologically having dark hair,
>with many twisting braids; silky skin; flat nose; swollen lips; Women
>with elongated labia; breasts lactating profusely and from their
>character Sly, sluggish, and neglectful. White people by contrast were by
>temperament sanguine and  strong, biologically with plenty of yellow hair; 
>blue eyes, and from their character light, wise, and  inventors etc.
>Modern scientific racism has its origins here rather than in Darwin.
>
>Now, did he as you claim consider the nested hierarchies as evidence for
>God? Not quite, though that is an easy mistake to make for modern
>readers, who look at him through Paleyan lenses. But he didn't, and the 
>reasons are interesting. He was not a natural theologian in the Paleyan 
>mold, and the inference does not run from: "we observe nested hierarchies, 
>these are what we should expect from God's design, therefore God" The
>problem with this inference was always that it is inconsistent with 
>God's omnipotence - God could have created differently had he so chosen, 
>which means we can't use His contingent choice as evidence for anything.
>What Linnaeus does is reasoning in the other direction. He takes God's 
>existence and the fact that he is the Creator as a given - no further
>evidence is needed or wanted. But by seeing order in his creation, we are 
>seeing beauty, it lifts us up and also makes the world intelligible to
>us. So we should be grateful for, and maybe moved by the way he created, but 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========