RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Voices for Evolution, People Speaking Up for Good Science< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,09:33   

The National Center for Science Education compiles a resource on organizations endorsing evolutionary science called Voices for Evolution. This thread is for adding further examples.

It isn't for hijacking, so I'm warming up the BW button.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2008,09:37   

United Methodist Church Takes Steps

1. Accepting science's findings on evolution and finding no bar to faith in them.

2. Endorsing the Clergy Letter Project.

and

3. Taking a stand against creationism and "intelligent design" being incorporated into public school science classes.

Update: 1 & 3 were proposed and passed committee, but were not passed by the plenary.

Drat.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 12 2008,12:55

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2008,20:51   

The heck with the Methodists... didn't the Pope just reaffirm that the Catholic Church is still on board the Science Train?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2008,20:58   

Actually, I'm hearing that despite what's on the website, the UMC did adopt all three in plenary. Once this shakes out for sure, I'll state what's up.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:34   

Kinda OT here....Looking for a critique of this:

 
Quote
In nineteenth century England, Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for this theory (descent with modification), though he did not reference Epicurus. He also had deep theological and personal problems with the question of evil and suffering. Like many of his peers in the Enlightenment, had a very poor grasp of the Bible on this subject, and thus moved away from believing that the God of the Bible was good.

But Darwin did something profoundly dishonest as he changed the terms of the debate to suit his presuppositions:

“The homological construction of the whole frame in the members of the same class is intelligible, if we admit their descent from a common progenitor, together with their subsequent adaptation to diversified conditions. On any other view the similarity of pattern between the hand of a monkey, the foot of a horse, the flipper of a seal, the wing of a bat, etc., is utterly inexplicable (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 31).

First, Darwin changed the language away from “morphology” to “homology.” Morphology is “the branch of biology dealing with the form and structure of organisms.” But homology, though also a biological term, is rooted in the philosophical assumption of “a fundamental similarity based on common descent.”

In other words, morphology describes things the way they are – different species all have the similarity of having “digits” in their bone structures. This is straightforward science. But homology presupposes that these similarities are due to a common organic source – i.e., it presupposes the theory of macroevolution. This is philosophy.

Second, Darwin would not admit any counter theory to be explored. Indeed, for his whole professional life he was arguing against the long-standing idea of a “common Designer,” as articulated in his age by William Paley and others. So when Darwin says that “any other view … is utterly inexplicable,” he never identifies the view he was challenging, thus not being accountable to its argument.

Had he been honest, he would have stated the arguments for the two competing views side by side, then argued why his theory was better:

Common Designer – morphological similarities are there because a Designer knew that various forms of life need their respective types of digits to function.

Common descent – morphological similarities are there because they evolved from a common organic source, all the way up to mankind (the argument with which Darwin concluded Descent).

But he did not. The problem for Darwin was this – whereas his theory could have some logical ability given its starting point, he still could not rise above the logic of the Epicurean swerve. He would not look at the question of origins. Where did the first living cell come from? And this leads us to the debate over “intelligent design,” which is merely current language for a “common Designer.” It has always been the same debate that Darwin would not honestly admit or confront head-on.


Is this guy speaking out of his ass???   My assumption is yes.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,11:57   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 24 2008,12:34)
Kinda OT here....Looking for a critique of this:

 {snip}
Is this guy speaking out of his ass???   My assumption is yes.

You are correct.

First, Darwin was not "Enlightenment" - that was a century earlier.  He would have been "Victorian."

Second, Darwin nearly completed his university degree for Holy Orders  - or the Church of England equivalent - so he was well educated in theology and The Bible.

Third, Owen, a special creationist (lower case, not to be confused with the modern scam artists), invented the idea of homology, not Darwin.

Fourth, your citation misrepresents homology.  It does not refer to an "ancestral structure," but "the same embryonic origin."  Owen deserves an apology.  

Finally,  invoking a Disembodied Telic Entity is no scientific explanation, since The DET could do anything in any fashion whatsoever, but descent with modification must work with structures which are already available to fool around with.

Of course you knew this.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2008,12:09   

Quote
It isn't for hijacking, so I'm warming up the BW button.


Take this thread to Cu...

Oh.

Never mind.

  
  6 replies since May 12 2008,09:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]