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= Return-Path: <mod-submit@uni-berlin.de> X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 20929229786; Tue, 14 May 2024 17:49:42 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C854F229767 for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Tue, 14 May 2024 17:49:39 -0400 (EDT) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from <mod-submit@uni-berlin.de>) id 1s701t-00000003fRJ-0Qdh; Tue, 14 May 2024 23:49:49 +0200 by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from <mod-submit@uni-berlin.de>) id 1s701c-00000004BPX-2uMp; Tue, 14 May 2024 23:49:32 +0200 by relay1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from <mod-submit@uni-berlin.de>) id 1s701c-000000037LX-2d0C; Tue, 14 May 2024 23:49:32 +0200 for talk-origins@moderators.individual.net with local-bsmtp (envelope-from <mod-submit@uni-berlin.de>) id 1s701b-00000002mF1-1qcg; Tue, 14 May 2024 23:49:31 +0200 X-Path: individual.net!not-for-mail X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net LImWCe4kobOnYoxk0671Ywv3XNmc7d/pg8HmJWKErEEGMX7GCG X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO 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 ==========