his position evolved

The DI says it's science that isn't open to other ideas, but when one comes from within their own ranks, they're excommunicated. What a bunch of hypocrites.

“I think evolutionary theory is compatible with faith,”

He just figured that out?

I'd be curious to see Schloss and Ben Stein have a talk about this...

Expelled: No morals allowed

Contrary opinion? Nine, das verboten!

He became an apostate in a religious organization and was cast out. That's what they do. That's the primary reason ID can't be called a theory. Countervailing evidence is considered apostacy, not data. Sorry, but that's not how it's supposed to work.

re: #3 Mich-again

He just figured that out?

I knew that when I was 10 years old and looking at dinosaur bones.

re: #7 NCusTranshumanist

He became an apostate in a religious organization and was cast out. That's what they do. That's the primary reason ID can't be called a theory. Countervailing evidence is considered apostacy, not data. Sorry, but that's not how it's supposed to work.

You can say the same exact thing about global warming. I do.

re: #3 Mich-again

He just figured that out?

No, it's pretty clear he figured it out at least three years ago (see October 2005 interview) and probably more like five years ago (when he left the DI), if not before.

The interesting thing is that absent the fundies of all stripes, I think there is reasonably wide agreement that the two worldviews are highly compatible. The Templeton Foundation is an example of folks earnestly and sincerely trying to meld science and religion. Interestingly, it would seem that basal notions of integrity can be used to identify those who are truly trying to meld belief and fact with those are trying to bend one or both. In the case of Behe, his testimony at the Dover trial and later make it very clear that he is pretty much a paid shill. On the opposite side of the fence, Dawkins goes out of his way to say things that are shocking, but that ignore the fact that while religion may reside squarely in the realm of the unprovable it is nonetheless a bedrock for billions. True or not, it earns it can be evaluated through the results (good and bad) it produces. As these threads continue to play out, perhaps what we really need to be looking for is integrity of the sort Schloss has shown.

Schloss believes science can contribute something to the question of whether the nature of the universe is accidental or purposeful.

See, this guy has his head scrwed on straight. Nothing about evolution forecludes the possibility that the Universe as a whole has a "purpose," or that a deity/God/intelligence pre-emptively "designed" the laws of nature and then set the whole thing in motion with a "big bang." Such matters are beyond investigation, proof, or disproof, and as such are a matter of belief. Which is fine. It is possible in this manner to believe in God/religion and also accept the reality of the evolutionary process. And many religious scientists do just that -- as do many non-dogmatic Christians and Jews.

Furthermore, to be a bit more specific, nothing about evolutionary theory in any way challenges or contradicts the possibility that there was a savior named Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Again, it is only the scheming Discovery Institute types that even suggest such a conflict.

You can be a Christian and still accept evolution. You can believe in God and still accept evolution. (Or not.) It's all good.

I want equal time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster! ARRRRRRR!

I like this guy.

Physicist-priest John Polkinghorne, one of the most esteemed scholars of science and religion featured in the movie, rightly reminds us that “metaphysical claims need to be defended with metaphysical arguments.”

And this is precisely where ID goes wrong. They try to shove the square metaphysical peg through the round material hole and wonder why it isn't working. It isn't working because the two are inherently different- like comparing apples to oranges. True- they are both fruit, and both good, but different nonetheless.

i am looking for a good evolution of a great beer.

will even accept a I.D. BEER.

i can flip flop on the subject of great beer.

It's OK to speculate on this evolution stuff so long as you all remember that it's turtles, all the way down, and Cthulhu is their Prophet.

“I think evolutionary theory is compatible with faith,” Schloss said.

Two opposable thumbs up.

What is the effect of MOONBATS on this whole debate?

the missing link?

Evolution seems a perfectly practical means for God to create life across the vastness of the universe. Set up the laws by which the physical universe operates, scatter organic molecules via comets and such, then let the seeds of life spring forth where they find purchase, each forming itself to best fit into its own environment.

Abner Doubleday is said to have invented (created) baseball. That means he established the rules for baseball. It doesn't mean Mr. Doubleday throws every pitch, hits every ball, makes every out of every game. By the same token, it isn't necessary for God to be constantly at the switch, deciding the outcome of every quantum event. A good engineer should be able to design a system that mostly runs on its own.

re: #21 Mr. E. Train

Nice summary of the rational approach of how to reconcile a theistic-evolutionary universe!

The DI is developing it's own fossil record.

re: #12 zombie

You can be a Christian and still accept evolution. You can believe in God and still accept evolution. (Or not.) It's all good.

Not being a 'practicing' Christian for several years (Still have the faith) I think your explanation is about the best argument I've seen on this subject. I just can't see what the hubub is all about because of the fact that if Intelligent Design (i.e. God) started the ball rolling (Big Bang) and left it to it's own devices, evolution would and should bring us to where we are now.... otherwise, it would have been a big dud (Big Bang) and we all know God wouldn't let that happen.

EVERYTHING evolves and adapts to it's environment to survive. Those species that don't/can't evolve cease to exist. (Well the 7th Century clowns WON'T evolve.) That's the luck of the draw.

Not to put a fly in the ointment, but one of thing about evolution that folks fail to recognize is that adaptation is not always productive. The 'Blind Watchmaker' is indeed mostly blind, and the random solutions produced by mutation sometimes evolve themselves into evolutionary cul-de-sacs (see Irish Elk for details). Big horns = good sexual selection. Big horns = hard to move, easier to hunt. Species die. This is of course a pale recapitulation of the arguments put forth in the Panda's Thumb. Yes, overall we have differential reproductive success and adaptation and ecosystems ... but there is no guiding principle to any of this, or none that can be readily discerned. If God is an engineer, then He is such a good engineer that He has left no fingerprints whatsoever on His design ... and thus has to a first approximation given us the great gift of not believing in Him.

The instructional thing here is how quickly Discovery turned on this guy once he stopped spouting solid party line. They will eat their own at the slightest hint of disagreement, please take note Medved and others.

re: #26 Deaddog

If God is an engineer, then He is such a good engineer that He has left no fingerprints whatsoever on His design ... and thus has to a first approximation given us the great gift of not believing in Him.

Evolution doesn't make believing in God impossible. It makes not believing in God possible. That's what really angers the fundamentalists.

OT - but you guys really have to see this:

Facebook groups say Israel is not a country

unbelievable!

Apparently the JIDF is doing something about it but I can't quite figure what: JIDF

re: #26 Deaddog

The other argument that Discovery institute rushes past is that imperfect adaptations sometimes gravitate to a new niche to survive. E.G. A tool does not have to be perfect to work. There are species of woodpecker for instance whose bills aren't long enough to grub deep in trees who solve the problem by using sticks.

re: #29 Wild Knight

Meh... it's just a facebook group. They have the right to state their views.

"...but I am even more amazed about the intense hatred of some of the leading (and following) ID Creationists towards theistic evolutionists."

I'm amazed as well.

how many beers does it take to invoke the IRON FIST RULE?

re: #30 Thanos

There are species of woodpecker for instance whose bills aren't long enough to grub deep in trees who solve the problem by using sticks.

Cool--do you have a link (with pics)?

He's a witch! Turned me into a newt. But, I got better.

re: #33 yochanan

how many beers does it take to invoke the IRON FIST RULE?

:) If you have to ask you probably should invoke the rule friend.

re: #27 Thanos

The instructional thing here is how quickly Discovery turned on this guy once he stopped spouting solid party line. They will eat their own at the slightest hint of disagreement, please take note Medved and others.

Well, the attack may be vicious but I don't know about quick. It seems to be that Schloss' defection has been going on for at least five years now.

re: #29 Wild Knight

OT - but you guys really have to see this:

Facebook groups say Israel is not a country

unbelievable!

Apparently the JIDF is doing something about it but I can't quite figure what: JIDF

And this, I'm pretty sure, has been going on since at least March. There were a few articles about it in the Jerusalem Post back then.

/ok, enough timeline comments from me

re: #34 twincitiesgirl

Cool--do you have a link (with pics)?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #32 scottishbuzzsaw

Compared to the infighting amongst the 30 flavors of the Creationist / ID crowd, the academic fights over neutral mutation are tame.

[Link: lippard.blogspot.com...]

re: #39 Basho

Thanks I found the same link--always happy to learn new things.

re: #34 twincitiesgirl

Cool--do you have a link (with pics)?

Galapagos Island Woodpecker Finch, Do your own research if you disbelieve. Can you prove ID, have any experiments you can show us? How about Peer reviewed papers that didnt' appear with only shallow review or in foreign journals that are prone to bizarre pseudo-science theories?
Can you show me a court case with Behe as an expert witness where he didn't lose?

re: #42 Thanos

Heh, relax. She was genuinely interested :)

re: #42 Thanos

uh.....I think you're responding to the wrong person. I am not an ID person and have come to view the Discovery Institute with contempt for their dishonest manipulative ways.

Survival of the Dimmest!

re: #44 twincitiesgirl

uh.....I think you're responding to the wrong person. I am not an ID person and have come to view the Discovery Institute with contempt for their dishonest manipulative ways.

I call BS, why the term "cool aid?"

re: #44 twincitiesgirl

Many creationists around here are fond of using sarcastic tones when evidence of evolution is presented. It's sometimes hard to distinguish between genuine curiosity and insults.

I think DI has been irreducibly pwned.

re: #43 Basho

Thanks for coming to my defense. I never followed this issue until Charles started posting on it. I have learned a lot from reading posts and doing my own research.

What I don't like about these discussions is the vitriol used by some people on both sides of the issue which bogs down honest debate/discovery.

re: #46 Thanos

I call BS, why the term "cool aid?"

Where did she say that? All I see is "cool."

re: #40 Deaddog

Compared to the infighting amongst the 30 flavors of the Creationist / ID crowd, the academic fights over neutral mutation are tame.

[Link: lippard.blogspot.com...]

Thank you! From your link:

By contrast, there is immense eye-witness corroboration of the accusations against Mackay, such as his bizarre and slanderous accusations of witchcraft and necrophilia, and his official church discipline.

What a lovely bunch of people.

re: #47 Basho

Thanks again--I found that out the hard way. I guess I'll just lurk from now on.

re: #18 Syrah

It won't matter what people think when Cthulu gets out of his trans-dimensional closet. Truly some things are better left in the closet. Trans-dimensional universe ingesting entities for example. They will wish they had studdied something besides Darwin or the Bible....HP Lovecraft for example.

This is so cool how God uses the foolish to confound the wise . . .

re: #52 twincitiesgirl
Nope. Stand up for yourself. Don't be a lurker, please.

Schloss gets a more than a little slippery in his reasoning. I would be interested to see him devote as much space and effort to show how Darwinism leaves room for faith. Of course, he won't because he can not. Socrates died for his skepticism. Darwinists would simply mute him. Soon enough, the Darwinists will have to stop hiding behind their "room for faith" mutterings and come clean.

re: #54 outsidephilly

This is so cool how God uses the foolish to confound the wise . . .

Who is foolish and who is wise in your eyes?

re: #56 heliotrope

Um, I'm about as Darwinist as you can get. There's plenty of room for faith. QED.

re: #57 scottishbuzzsaw

Who is foolish and who is wise in your eyes?

I am one of the foolish . . .

re: #55 pingjockey

Nope. Stand up for yourself. Don't be a lurker, please.

Agreed. Seems like it was just a misunderstanding.

re: #56 heliotrope

Socrates died for his skepticism. Darwinists would simply mute him.

On what do you base that?

re: #59 outsidephilly

I am one of the foolish . . .

Forgive me, what does being foolish mean?

re: #60 Basho

Agreed. Seems like it was just a misunderstanding.

yeah, just get back up, brush yourself off, and put in your 2 cents

re: #61 Killgore Trout

On what do you base that?

On..... Hitler was a Darwinist! That's what!

/s

Sincere apologies Twin Cities Girl.

I should know better than to read with my glasses off by now. I've put them back on now the the smoker is going fine, and see that you did not say cool aid, you said cool.. my mistake.

Sorry two terms really tend to set me off, one of them is cool aid or Kool aid, the other is "sheeple"

One's used most oft by the right the other most oft by the left, but both are meant to imply that folks are not individuals who can think for themselves. It was knee jerk of me.

re: #56 heliotrope

P.S. wasn't he killed by theists for not believing in their gods?

The correct phrase, Charles, is "excommunicated by bell, book, and candle"!

Boy, I'd like to have witnessed that particular ceremony-- or maybe not! ;-)

re: #56 heliotrope

re: #56 heliotrope

You got one here buddy. I have never hid my beliefs and since boyhood have disagreed with religion over Darwin. No way will I cover up my disbelief in godworship by denying Evolution. It is my right as an American to believe what I wish.

You have the same Rights my friend.

re: #65 Thanos
Ya big meanie! :)

re: #65 Thanos

While I think the apology is wonderfully sincere, I can't but help to say that the section:

"Sorry two terms really tend to set me off ... both are meant to imply that folks are not individuals who can think for themselves. It was knee jerk of me."

is really amusingly self-defeating.

That said, the apology is wonderfully sincere.

re: #56 heliotrope

Soon enough, the Darwinists will have to stop hiding behind their "room for faith" mutterings and come clean.

Yeah- that darn Pope, hiding behind his "room for faith". What does he know about faith anyways, huh?

Ok I don't have pictures yet for you, but I'm digging..

I saw it on a Nat'l Geographic special a few years back, the woodpecker actually broke off a twig with it's beak to dig for insects in a tree.

re: #12 zombie

You saaid that as well as I have ever heard it said!

Thank you Zombie

re: #69 pingjockey

Ya big meanie! :)

Yeah, I get touchy when I think someone's attacking individuality, I suck today, put me in the doghouse for the night.

re: #62 scottishbuzzsaw

Forgive me, what does being foolish mean?

foolish . . . , one who by faith believes things like,

. . , And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good

re: #71 Sharmuta
Where have you been Sharm? Don't you know the Catholic church isn't true Christianity?! Remember that fool yesterday.

re: #65 Thanos

Thanks--understood and accepted.

re: #77 twincitiesgirl

Thanks--understood and accepted.

You are most gracious, I don't deserve it.

re: #75 outsidephilly

And how is that confounding to the wise in the context we're discussing?

re: #78 Thanos

You are most gracious, I don't deserve it.

this is SO cool! :o)

re: #76 pingjockey

Where have I been? I went to Mass so I could feel like not a true Christian. ;p

re: #72 Thanos

Woodpecker Finches

Charles Darwin observed many species of finches inhabiting the Galapagos Islands and theorized that all of them evolved from a single-species population that had somehow made it to the island. The woodpecker finch, Geospiza pallida, that resides there is one of Darwin's finches. It is called the woodpecker finch because it has evolved the ability to pry insect larvae out of holes in a tree by using a cactus spine or other long, thin tool.

pic

re: #74 Thanos
No doghouse for you. You said you were smoking, what pray tell, pork, beef, chicken? I sentence you to one hour without an adult beverage! Now if you were here in Eastern WA. today that would be bad. It is 103 right now!

re: #80 outsidephilly

this is SO cool! :o)

Pbbbbbt!

re: #82 Killgore Trout

Action shot

re: #79 scottishbuzzsaw

And how is that confounding to the wise in the context we're discussing?

Yeah, thanks for pursuing this, sbs. I'm having trouble getting this whole line of "foolish" thought myself.

re: #75 outsidephilly

And what a great, great country it is that you can believe that, and I can actually evolve things that hopefully will help cure or protect you or those you love. I am not wise nor am I confounded, but I am amused. I most definitely am amused.

re: #79 scottishbuzzsaw

And how is that confounding to the wise in the context we're discussing?

Well, its my simple way of saying my brain isn't big enough to wrap itself around all that y'all are better able to grasp.

re: #81 Sharmuta

I guess so. Same with my Sunday school lessons those many years ago.

re: #88 outsidephilly

Well, its my simple way of saying my brain isn't big enough to wrap itself around all that y'all are better able to grasp.

Does that mean it is not true, if you cannot wrap your brain around it?

re: #82 Killgore Trout

Woodpecker Finches

pic

Thanks! The N. Geo doc was pretty cool, they got some shots of the finch using the stick, I can't find photos of the finch with the stick though.

re: #91 Thanos
It actually uses a cactus spine. Pretty cool though.

re: #83 pingjockey

No doghouse for you. You said you were smoking, what pray tell, pork, beef, chicken? I sentence you to one hour without an adult beverage! Now if you were here in Eastern WA. today that would be bad. It is 103 right now!

Pork short ribs with applewood, the special sekret saussse, and a kettle of water with pears diced up in it.

Gotta go, whining kids.

re: #91 Thanos

See 85.

re: #93 Thanos
Sounds absolutley fantastic.

re: #90 scottishbuzzsaw

Does that mean it is not true, if you cannot wrap your brain around it?

nah . . . , all I know is this. God made, for the sake of discussion, a dog. Yet, He didn't make all the different breeds of dogs. That came about by breeding.

OT
Former ambassador Holbrook , who is in Georgia, just gave a very good snapshot of what is going on. It is clear why he is not on Obam'a team. He really does know what is going on. He paid his own way over BTW. @ of his observations: Russian troops and Officers, including the army General were drunk. And the Russians were wearing stolen Georgian uniforms. he saw both with his own eyes. now those are telling observations on the current quality of Russian troops.

re: #92 pingjockey

Yeah, it was quite a while ago when I saw it. On my last vacation I got pics of some Green Herons, but it was hard to catch them in the act with the camera:

Green Heron
A few green herons have been observed dropping small objects onto the surface of the water. When small fish swim to the surface to investigate the object, the heron grabs the fish. This is apparently not innate behavior because only a few individual birds practice it. Attempts to teach herons to use bait have also been unsuccessful, so why a few do it is not clear.

It may be behavior learned through experience. Perhaps a bird accidentally drops a small object in the water and sees that small fish are attracted. If the heron is able to make the connection between dropping the bait and catching a fish, this indicates a level of cognitive ability beyond what is considered normal for these birds. Perhaps only exceptionally intelligent birds are able to learn the behavior.

A Fox viewer emailed that the MSM is trying to bury the Saddleback showcase. Because Obama did so poorly, McCain kicked his but, and Warren and the Saddleback audience came out looking very sharp.
So much for the bitter.

I dropped a sledge hammer on my toe. I am beginning to think this was not a good way to catch fish. Not sure I want to try it again to find out. Soaking in epsom salts seems to help.re: #99 Thanos

re: #101 silversmith

I dropped a sledge hammer on my toe. I am beginning to think this was not a good way to catch fish. Not sure I want to try it again to find out. Soaking in epsom salts seems to help.

No, that's always a bad way to catch fish, but a good way to get out of the honey-do list a short while.

re: #100 pat

A Fox viewer emailed that the MSM is trying to bury the Saddleback showcase. Because Obama did so poorly, McCain kicked his but, and Warren and the Saddleback audience came out looking very sharp.
So much for the bitter.

Man, that is shocking. I never expected anything like this. Wow.

what a surprise

.../sarc

re: #100 pat

A Fox viewer emailed that the MSM is trying to bury the Saddleback showcase. Because Obama did so poorly, McCain kicked his but, and Warren and the Saddleback audience came out looking very sharp.
So much for the bitter.

I have had a very hard time warming up to McCain but he blew Obama away.

Now the Obama camp is saying the "Cone of Silence" wasn't all that silent for McCain..

A signal of defeat when they reach for that one.

re: #100 pat

A Fox viewer emailed that the MSM is trying to bury the Saddleback showcase. Because Obama did so poorly, McCain kicked his but, and Warren and the Saddleback audience came out looking very sharp.
So much for the bitter.

They're creationists; All you have to do to paint them as idiots is play some banjo music, or a little mississippi delta-style blues in the background. The media must not be very scientific.

re: #70 Deaddog

While I think the apology is wonderfully sincere, I can't but help to say that the section:

"Sorry two terms really tend to set me off ... both are meant to imply that folks are not individuals who can think for themselves. It was knee jerk of me."

is really amusingly self-defeating.

That said, the apology is wonderfully sincere.

Yes, but most people determine somewhere early in life what "yanks their chain" it's usually a creative, individual effort. It starts with setting firm values, and ends with epistemological muscles reflexively twitching at times.

My BIL tells me that the Saddleback congregation is firmly suburban professionals and multi-income families. A highly intelligent congregation.

re: #98 pat

Funny that

Most of that 'audience' was the regular congregation, but a lot wasn't!

(The monies collected for those who bought seats are going for humanitarion causes btw:-)

re: #104 natemannq

I have had a very hard time warming up to McCain but he blew Obama away.

Now the Obama camp is saying the "Cone of Silence" wasn't all that silent for McCain..

A signal of defeat when they reach for that one.

I know what you are saying. I despise elemenys of McCain's thinking. But the MSM Obamania wears on my sense of fairness as well as the MSM's unwillingness to state the obvious: he is a lightweight.

Good evening, Lizards.

I was just reading an article about how antibodies remain effective against viruses basically forever:

Study: Antibodies from 1918 Flu Prove Immune System has Steel-Trap Memory

This quote jumped out at me (emphasis mine):

"It's incredible. The Lord has blessed us with antibodies our whole lifetime," said study co-author Dr. Eric Altschuler at the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey. "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

re: #110 goddessoftheclassroom

Yep. i was on the tail end of the small pox vaccinations. :). But kids don't have them.:(

re: #107 pat

My BIL tells me that the Saddleback congregation is firmly suburban professionals and multi-income families. A highly intelligent congregation.

The congregation is mainly from the surrounding areas, (i.e. Santa Margarita, Irvine, Foothill Ranch, Lake Forest, Capistrano, Laguna Nigel,
Dana Point and Laguna) Just a few really (of the cities).

But a lot also travel a fairl amount of miles every week, (for all services) from other distant cities too.

re: #111 pat

Yep. i was on the tail end of the small pox vaccinations. :). But kids don't have them.:(

I remember how shocked I was when my Lizard-in-Training was a baby, and I was told that the smallpox inoculation was no longer given. I sometimes wonder whether it would be prudent to bring it back, just to be safe.

Of course Hitler may well have been gravely mentally ill (as many serious studies of his personality conclude), and yet still have been clever enough to see the logical entailments of a Darwinian worldview that Weikart argues are there. The problem with this is that many of the most important aspects of the Hitlerian program have nothing at all to do with Darwin (such as Germanic superiority, Jewish vileness, a racial view of human history). And those ideas that are attributed to Darwin (such as natural selection makes might right in social policy) were actually not advocated but repudiated by Darwin and his immediate colleagues. Nor have ensuing generations of self-professed Darwinians and modern evolutionary biologists been led to conclusions that are remotely similar. Clearly the horrors of Nazism cannot be inevitable outcomes or logical extensions of Darwinian theory.

I think the "Did Darwin lead to Hitler" section is the best. He brings up quite a few good points- all of which are worthy to be quoted in this thread and discussed, but for me, the above is a clincher. Other supporters of evolutionary thinking do not come to the conclusion that genocide is supported by the theory.

dang nabit PIMF

bbl

The DI's muslim pals might view this very seriously.
He'd better watch his back!

OT: Russian planned for Georgia invasion in April.
http://www.rferl.org/

"This was prepared long ago," Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based military analyst tells RFE/RL's North Caucasus Service, adding that according to his information, a decision to go to war was made back in April.

"A decision was made for the war to start in August. The war would have happened regardless of what the Georgians did. Whether they responded to the provocations or not, there would have been an invasion of Georgia," Felgenhauer says. "The goal was to destroy Georgia's central government, defeat the Georgian army, and prevent Georgia from joining NATO."

April -- the month in which Felgenhauer claims Russia made its decision to invade -- was also the month when the NATO military alliance declined to offer outright a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine at its annual summit in Bucharest.

re: #104 natemannq

I have had a very hard time warming up to McCain but he blew Obama away.

Now the Obama camp is saying the "Cone of Silence" wasn't all that silent for McCain..

A signal of defeat when they reach for that one.

Well which is it then? Obama's people have been claiming that McCain is old and "not quite all there," so how on earth can he possibly have the mental accumen to vaguely overhear a conversation and reformulate every single thing he was going to say on the fly specifically in order to make Obama look bad?

re: #109 pat

...the MSM Obamania wears on my sense of fairness as well as the MSM's unwillingness to state the obvious: he is a lightweight.

Somewhat OT, but I think Mark Hemingway's overview of the Saddleback event is right on the money:

[I]t's worth noting that Obama wasn't just bad, but that McCain was very good. He was the perfect balance of likable and serious. He also came across as informed, offered far more policy specifics than Obama, highlighted his faith as was appropriate to the setting, and almost everything he said bolstered his conservative credentials.

The whole post is worth a read.

re: #112 Dizzy26

I have the deepest respect for Saddlebrook and Rick Warren. I subscribe to the Daily Devotional by email, and it's been a wonderful study and prayer guide to my life.

Lizards, if you're interested, here's the web site to subscribe:
[Link: www.saddlebackresources.com...]

Note: I am NOT a member of this church, not do I personally know Rick Warren.

re: #120 StinkHammer

PIMF: Saddlebrook

Errg.

re: #122 StinkHammer

PIMF: Saddlebrook

Errg.

Er, I goofed: it's Saddleback. Sorry.

Socrates was killed by theists for his skepticism. (To clear that up.)

Active atheists (most atheists are just lazy) use Darwinism as a club against those of faith.

I do not have a dog in this fight. Evolution is not just one simple theory. There are parts that have been established as scientific fact and subject to the scientific method. There is much that is compelling theory. However, a slide of an ape with an arrow (superimposed with a question mark) pointing at a man is academic honesty, unless you are on a roll to crush those whom you assume are some kind of Bible thumping Neanderthal.

It would be interesting to read the Darwinist's annotated Bible. I would challenge Schloss or anyone who says he is a Darwinist and not an atheist to write one. I am not saying this as a fundamentalist, I am approaching it as a skeptic of the sincerity of the scientific community in carving out room for Occam's razor.

re: #113 goddessoftheclassroom

Immune memory is good but not perfect:

"By performing cross sectional analysis of a cohort of 306
smallpox vaccine recipients, Hammarlund et al. (38) demonstrated
that the vaccinia virus-specific memory CD4+ T cells
are long lived. However, the memory CD4+ T-cell population
declined slowly, with a half-life of 8–12 years. These results
were corroborated in two additional studies (39, 45). The
memory CD8+ T-cell response to vaccinia was also long lived
but with an unexpected twist: vaccine-specific memory CD8+
T cells dropped below detection in approximately half of the
vaccinees sometime before 20 years postvaccination. The reasons
for this observation are unclear, but the preferential
survival of CD4+ memory over CD8+ memory have been
confirmed in an independent study (45)."

[Link: www3.interscience.wiley.com...]

re: #109 pat

I know what you are saying. I despise elemenys of McCain's thinking. But the MSM Obamania wears on my sense of fairness as well as the MSM's unwillingness to state the obvious: he is a lightweight.

If more people would decide to actually educate themselves instead of living on Biggie Sized #4's with diet cokes, we wouldn't need the MSM to do a thing..

(Not that they are)

re: #124 heliotrope

The Pope would just show you the Bible.

re: #124 heliotrope

It would be interesting to read the Darwinist's annotated Bible. I would challenge Schloss or anyone who says he is a Darwinist and not an atheist to write one. I am not saying this as a fundamentalist, I am approaching it as a skeptic of the sincerity of the scientific community in carving out room for Occam's razor.

Gosh, I think my Bible looks just like everyone else's, pretty much. I don't do literalism, I do alot of allegory. Same Bible, though.

You keep looking for a divide that's not there. But that's fine, some people just can't take 'yes' for an answer.

For the foodies among you here are the baby backs we had on the lower rack, the spare ribs are already off since they started this morning.
[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

re: #21 Mr. E. Train

Evolution seems a perfectly practical means for God to create life across the vastness of the universe. Set up the laws by which the physical universe operates, scatter organic molecules via comets and such, then let the seeds of life spring forth where they find purchase, each forming itself to best fit into its own environment.

Abner Doubleday is said to have invented (created) baseball. That means he established the rules for baseball. It doesn't mean Mr. Doubleday throws every pitch, hits every ball, makes every out of every game. By the same token, it isn't necessary for God to be constantly at the switch, deciding the outcome of every quantum event. A good engineer should be able to design a system that mostly runs on its own.

The whole doctrine of free will posits that humans, at any rate, make their own decisions, not necessarily the decisions that God calls upon them to make, or that He would make in the same circumstances. Why, then, would it be theologically sound to insist that quantum events have no genuine randomness, but all dance to the tune of a rigidly scripted divine purpose? What sort of doctrine is it, that God can do only classical music, never jazz?

There is considerable scientific evidence that quantum events, though very strange and subject to mysterious (but not unfathomable) "entanglement", enjoy a considerable degree of fundamental randomness. It would be rank folly to construct a mighty bomb, and set it to go off provided that a small sample of uranium experienced the breakdown of any one atom in the course of the next 24 hours---in the belief that God would not allow such a mischance. We would [if we pushed our luck repeatedly, or maybe even just once] discover, to our chagrin, that free will includes the possibility of leaving even momentous events to chance.

I'm an atheist, I've read the bible a few times, it looks like everyone else's pretty much...

Grand Canyon Breaks!

PHOENIX - An earthen dam weakened by heavy rains broke near the Grand Canyon early Sunday, flooding a tribal town and forcing officials to pluck hundreds of residents and campers from the gorge by helicopter. No injuries were immediately reported.

Is this for real?

re: #130 lostlakehiker

What sort of doctrine is it, that God can do only classical music, never jazz?

What a great way to say it.

re: #127 Sharmuta

Take it up with the Pope. If you have information that he is a full blown Darwinist, he would be interested to hear it.

Is the Pope, by your reckoning also an opponent of Intelligent Design? Oh, please, please reveal your clever wisdom on that.

re: #113 goddessoftheclassroom

I remember how shocked I was when my Lizard-in-Training was a baby, and I was told that the smallpox inoculation was no longer given. I sometimes wonder whether it would be prudent to bring it back, just to be safe.

Have you heard whooping cough pronounced with the 'w' ?

re: #130 lostlakehiker

What sort of doctrine is it, that God can do only classical music, never jazz?

I dunno -- listening to some old Sonny Rollins almost makes me believe in some divine intervention, there.

re: #131 Thanos

I'm an atheist, I've read the bible a few times, it looks like everyone else's pretty much...

Wow. How many Bibles are there? Since the Pope has been dragged into this, how about sticking to one he rests his faith upon?

re: #134 heliotrope

You're the one with the issue, not I. So why don't you take it up with the Pope? If you're so interested in where the Church stands on ID, you could always run a google search.

re: #98 pat

OT
Former ambassador Holbrook , who is in Georgia, just gave a very good snapshot of what is going on. It is clear why he is not on Obam'a team. He really does know what is going on. He paid his own way over BTW. @ of his observations: Russian troops and Officers, including the army General were drunk. And the Russians were wearing stolen Georgian uniforms. he saw both with his own eyes. now those are telling observations on the current quality of Russian troops.

Pat,

Link please!

re: #138 heliotrope

Wow. How many Bibles are there? Since the Pope has been dragged into this, how about sticking to one he rests his faith upon?

and why don't you get to the point and stop beating about the bush?make your argument if you have one. No need to be supercilious in your replies.

I think I know where you are going already, but please do hold forth.

re: #135 debutaunt

Yes!

re: #134 heliotrope

Take it up with the Pope. If you have information that he is a full blown Darwinist, he would be interested to hear it.

Is the Pope, by your reckoning also an opponent of Intelligent Design? Oh, please, please reveal your clever wisdom on that.

What is the purpose of insisting that science and faith cannot be reconciled on this issue?

re: #134 heliotrope

Take it up with the Pope. If you have information that he is a full blown Darwinist, he would be interested to hear it.

Is the Pope, by your reckoning also an opponent of Intelligent Design? Oh, please, please reveal your clever wisdom on that.

Uh, the official position of the Catholic Church is that creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Just back from chow... (In & OUT btw)

Here's some more information about Pastor R. Warren and Saddleback, for those who want to know. (IMHO worthwhile reading, not propaganda)

As a pastor, he founded Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA., with one family in 1980. Today it may be America's most influential congregation with over 100,000 names on the church roll, a 120 acre campus, and 248 community ministries to prisoners, CEOs, Down Syndrome children, addicts, single parents, those with HIV/AIDS, and many other groups. The church recently fed every homeless person in Orange County, 3 meals a day, for 40 days.


As a global strategist, he advises leaders in the public, private, and faith sectors on poverty, health, education, corruption, leadership development, and faith and ethics in culture. He has lectured on global issues at World Economic Forum in Davos, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Global Health Summit, the United Nations, the Aspen Ideas Institute, TED, and numerous world congresses. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Pacific Council on International Policy. He is the originator of the global P.E.A.C.E. initiative to Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation.


As an author, he has written seven books. "The Purpose Driven Life" was the bestselling book in the world for 2 years, and is the bestselling hardback in history, according to Publisher's Weekly. It had sold over 30 million copies in English alone, and been translated into nearly 100 languages. His previous book, "The Purpose Driven Church", is recognized in "100 Books that Changed the 20th Century." Forbes called it, "The best book on leadership and innovation in print."


As a theologian, Dr. Warren has lectured at numerous universities and seminaries including Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, the University of Judaism, and the Evangelical Theological Society. In 2007, he was named Theologian of the Year.


As an innovator, he has introduced dozens of innovations now commonly used in churches around the world. Saddleback was the first church on the Internet (1992) and hundreds of thousands of pastors use its websites for resources, forums, and sermons. He created the Purpose Driven Network, a global alliance of over 400,000 pastors from 162 countries who have attended Purpose Driven training. Forbes wrote, "If Saddleback's ministry was a business, its influence would be comparable to Dell, Google and Starbucks."


The father of modern management, Peter Drucker wrote, "Saddleback Church is the Bell Laboratories of Christianity ?EUR" the R & D department of the Church. Warren has a genius for synthesizing complex ideas and simplifying them into practical models. He's done it with organizing volunteers, preaching sermons, mobilizing small groups, creating systems for spiritual growth, and networking churches. He's the Wesley of the 21st Century. He's also a reformer in the Wilberforce tradition."

One thing some folks might not understand is that a small handfull of Catholic fundies are about the most extreme there are -- being outdistanced on the extrememe fundamentalist spectrum by only some of nutball splinter sects of the 7th Day Adventists. To some of them the Pope is only a step away from the Anti-christ and the entire Church went south at the council of Chalcedon.

Why not every scientist worships at Darwin's feet

But things aren't so simple. Scattered among the world's top scientists are those who do believe in a conscious intention behind nature's processes. I think of people such as Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Professor Bill Phillips, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997. The presence of such people poses awkward questions for the view that evolutionary theory and a sophisticated scientific brain lead inexorably towards atheism. There must be more to the so-called "science versus God" story than this.

/[tosses red meat into pit and runs]

In other news:

"Navy to turn back boats carrying pro-Palestinian activists"

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

This might be a good opportunity to find out if " Pro-Palestinian activists" can swim?

More on In & Out Burgers

My first attempt, (in 4 years) to link something. Hope it works well, cause the Burgers are the best in Cal.

re: #147 Killian Bundy

..Thanks. Loads.

re: #100 pat

A Fox viewer emailed that the MSM is trying to bury the Saddleback showcase. Because Obama did so poorly, McCain kicked his but, and Warren and the Saddleback audience came out looking very sharp.
So much for the bitter.

I didn't see it , but I have heard that Rick Warren was not a flack for Obama & that McCain did really well. Iwqas really wrong & thought that McCain was walking into an Obama lovefest because of Orprah selling so many of Warrens books.

The little I did see this morning had Obama as a stuttering fool.

re: #142 goddessoftheclassroom

Yes!

A local tv newswoman said it!

re: #137 buzzsawmonkey

Anyone who uses the term "Darwinist" is self-damned as an ignoramus.

Well, check out quotes above about finches who determine to evolve in a way to pick beetles out of a hole using a cactus thorn. Read the narrative of nearly any BBC nature program. The Darwinist's world is literally crawling with clever creatures who are reshaping their beaks, habits, heights, colors, etc. to fill niches. Now replicate it in the lab.

The scientific method is a hard task master.

I have been reading this one-sided blast at ID for some time. While I fall on the side of evolution, I am not so inclined to feed the fires of ignorant atheism as the gentle host of this blog seems to be. Gratuitous slaps and barbs do not have a place in either ethics or scientific inquiry. Schloss did a fine job deconstructing Ben Stein; he did a miserable job developing the alternative logic. Ergo, his whole essay failed under the weight of its one sided presentation.

P.S. QED is a meaningless "statement" in philosophy unless a formal fallacy of argument has been exposed.

re: #147 Killian Bundy

I'm not sure what point you were hoping to make, but this sort of shows that scientists can have professional integrity (Collins is scrupulous in his findings) and still believe in God. I think the words belie the rather inflammatory title "Why not every scientist worships at Darwin's feet."

The rules of the game are: evidence takes you where it takes you. Your beliefs are left at the door. But you can pick them up again on your way out.

The review of "Expelled" was very thoughtful and well reasoned. He hits the nail on the head with the following:

..., it is clear by inspection that atheism must entail evolution: for anyone who rejects the possibility of an intelligence behind the cosmos, there is no viable alternative to some sort of naturalistic evolutionary account of origins. But the reverse - that evolution requires or logically leads to atheism as Stein claims - well, this is not clear without argument.

(emphasis added)

re: #146 Thanos

One thing some folks might not understand is that a small handfull of Catholic fundies are about the most extreme there are -- being outdistanced on the extrememe fundamentalist spectrum by only some of nutball splinter sects of the 7th Day Adventists. To some of them the Pope is only a step away from the Anti-christ and the entire Church went south at the council of Chalcedon.

Are you talking about the Opus Dei Group? I know a guy who tried to recruit me. He really misread me. They have influence because they are cash rich.

re: #151 opnion

I didn't see it , but I have heard that Rick Warren was not a flack for Obama & that McCain did really well. Iwqas really wrong & thought that McCain was walking into an Obama lovefest because of Orprah selling so many of Warrens books.

The little I did see this morning had Obama as a stuttering fool.

Hate to say I told everyone that R. Warren is NOT political, (as the world understands that word!).

re: #158 Dizzy26

Hate to say I told everyone that R. Warren is NOT political, (as the world understands that word!).

Sounds like a straight up guy.

re: #139 Sharmuta

Won't work. You are on record for dragging the Pope into this in #71 and #127.

Now, you may expand on your short puffs and explain yourself, or just fade away. Since the Pope is not logged in, I will be glad to deconstruct your clever bon mots for him.

What is your relationship with the Pope and his religion? Do come clean.

re: #149 Dizzy26

More on In & Out Burgers

My first attempt, (in 4 years) to link something. Hope it works well, cause the Burgers are the best in Cal.

You are evil! I'm trying to lose weight and you gotta post that!

re: #160 opnion

Sounds like a straight up guy.

Yes, he is that. Want some info on his accomplishments m' friend?

(I'll understand a not interested reply)

re: #153 heliotrope

I am a Darwinist. I can have God in my world view. QED. That would seem to be the rather direct contradiction of the fallacy:

"Soon enough, the Darwinists will have to stop hiding behind their "room for faith" mutterings and come clean."

And as for the further deconstruct the rather bizarre statement:

"The Darwinist's world is literally crawling with clever creatures who are reshaping their beaks, habits, heights, colors, etc. to fill niches. Now replicate it in the lab."

Um, that seems to be what we do on a regular basis.

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

"The homeostatic framework has dominated our understanding of cellular physiology. We question whether homeostasis alone adequately explains microbial responses to environmental stimuli, and explore the capacity of intracellular networks for predictive behavior in a fashion similar to metazoan nervous systems. We show that in silico biochemical networks, evolving randomly under precisely defined complex habitats, capture the dynamical, multidimensional structure of diverse environments by forming internal representations that allow prediction of environmental change. We provide evidence for such anticipatory behavior by revealing striking correlations of Escherichia coli transcriptional responses to temperature and oxygen perturbations-precisely mirroring the covariation of these parameters upon transitions between the outside world and the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. We further show that these internal correlations reflect a true associative learning paradigm, because they show rapid decoupling upon exposure to novel environments."

The fact that the owner of this blog seems to side with rationality and technological progress is all in all a good thing, I think.

re: #162 bebe's boobs destroy

You are evil! I'm trying to lose weight and you gotta post that!

oops, didn't think, just elated I got a real URL link thingy..

(I'm ancient and not up on the tech shit er....stuff

#56
"...Darwinists will have to stop hiding behind their "room for faith" mutterings and come clean."

You're absolutely correct, there is no room for faith. When your faith contradicts science, your faith is wrong.
As simple as that, and that leaves you with the options of either wink, and smile or throw away the faith.
Unlike what Zombie has been saying that Darwinism and faith are NOT mutually exclusive, they in fact are.
Scientific endeavors do not have room for rotten ideas, you gotta pitch 'em.

re: #161 heliotrope

Here ya go, Pope Benedict quoted:

[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

re: #161 heliotrope

I'm not sure what part of "official position of the Church" that you don't understand. The Catholic Church supports evolution- period.

re: #165 Dizzy26

oops, didn't think, just elated I got a real URL link thingy..

(I'm ancient and not up on the tech shit er....stuff

I hope you got a bumpersticker and have cut it correctly.

re: #169 debutaunt

I hope you got a bumpersticker and have cut it correctly.

Heh,

They redesigned those years ago so that those can longer be made!

-OT

Gonna try to get one of those avitar thingys ...(not a clue yet)

re: #166 Infidel_jim

And around to the other side of the fence ....

Science says nothing about things that are not in the province of science. As a scientist, I can no more say that God (or evil or any other imaginary construct) exists than I can say that they don't exist. When in my labcoat, I am of necessity an aganostic on all subjects outside the realm of science, which is the natural realm, not the imaginary one.

That does not make such man-made constructs useless. Indeed, most of us live our lives by these constructs, and I believe the world is the better for them.

re: #134 heliotrope

re: #166 Infidel_jim

What is the purpose of insisting that science and faith cannot be reconciled on this issue?

re: #169 debutaunt

I hope you got a bumpersticker and have cut it correctly.

NOPE No stickers...(.except an NRA and Republican Party -Bush supporter)

AND I now live by Zion National Park, in Utah...A RIGHT TO CARRY State if you was wonderin' bout that:-)

re: #159 buzzsawmonkey

Nope. Of course evolution isn't pre-determined. But, if you care to apply the odds of specific evolution to a species, you will run into mega-generations of positive adaption that will out last your own life span.

Lecture if you will, I merely present the facts of spending decades as a peer reviewer in scientific inquiry in this area of inquiry.

Academic scientists are no more "pure" in their motives than the average journalist. The difference between the two is that there is an established method for weeding out junk science.

"if you care to apply the odds of specific evolution to a species, you will run into mega-generations of positive adaption"

This is a content-free statement.

re: #140 bebe's boobs destroy

Pat,

Link please!

Boobs, no link yet. I watched it.

re: #149 Dizzy26

More on In & Out Burgers

My first attempt, (in 4 years) to link something. Hope it works well, cause the Burgers are the best in Cal.

I love In N Out. i have an In N Out aloha shirt.

re: #175 heliotrope

"Of course evolution isn't pre-determined. But, if you care to apply the odds of specific evolution to a species, you will run into mega-generations of positive adaption that will out last your own life span."

Didn't we take care of this back with Darwin, dogs, and racehorses? Good thing that peer review was somewhat less demanding back then, eh? Darwin's observation that massive phenotypic change could be produced by selective breeding within known history would have been summarily rejected because of the known 'fact' that "mega-generations of positive adaptation ... will outlast your own life span."

re: #173 scottishbuzzsaw

The problem is not just one issue, it's a host of contradictions that have to reconciled separately.

Dodgers win in the 9th ------- 7-5

All the world is ok..('cept for moonbats and such) Dodgers and Yanks both win today yup!

Tied with Arizona for 1st now

What's amazing is they always turn out to be in scientific fields- or so they say.

re: #147 Killian Bundy

Why not every scientist worships at Darwin's feet

/[tosses red meat into pit and runs]

What's new about that Killian? If you recall it was Fred Hoyle who came up with exogenesis in an attempt to allow room for God in creation after some abiogenesis experiments. Scientists who believe in G-D are bound to have some biases towards, which creates a nice tension and leads to creative research. (no pun intended,....) As long as you are using real science to challenge or extend existing science there really isn't an issue.

re: #182 Sharmuta

Does Dental Assistance-ship count?

re: #184 jaunte

High five that, yo.

re: #178 pat

I love In N Out. i have an In N Out aloha shirt.

Too cool Pat...(green eyed over that)

re: #173 scottishbuzzsaw

Why should one knowingly keep contradictory ideas?

re: #153 heliotrope

Well, check out quotes above about finches who determine to evolve in a way to pick beetles out of a hole using a cactus thorn. Read the narrative of nearly any BBC nature program. The Darwinist's world is literally crawling with clever creatures who are reshaping their beaks, habits, heights, colors, etc. to fill niches. Now replicate it in the lab.

Replicate... in a lab... the reshaping of animal traits...?

GO TO ANY PET STORE!

re: #157 opnion

Are you talking about the Opus Dei Group? I know a guy who tried to recruit me. He really misread me. They have influence because they are cash rich.

To be honest, I am not sure of their name, they stay pretty cryptic. I've stumbled across a few of their sites in my travels, and they blew my mind.

re: #178 pat

Just got one here HOOOORAY!

An In and Out I mean..

Utah is not the quickest to adopt new things, don't ya know?

(Actually, I'm in Hurricane, .....and St. George got the Burgers:-)

re: #175 heliotrope

Lecture if you will, I merely present the facts of spending decades as a peer reviewer in scientific inquiry in this area of inquiry.

Is that you, George Silvers?

re: #192 Basho

Is that you, George Silvers?

Wasn't he a published epidemiologist?

re: #167 bebe's boobs destroy

Here ya go, Pope Benedict quoted:

[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

Did you read Schloss? He is nailing Ben Stein for Darwinism. Darwinism.

I will repeat, evolution is a term that includes Darwinism for many: survival of the fittest, the missing link, etc.

Why do "evolutionists" rail against "creationists"? Because "evolutionist" covers a broad spectrum of ideas and "creationist" also covers a broad spectrum of ideas.

There is no doubt that certain "Intelligent Design" folks are stuck on the "facts" as written in Genesis. There is no doubt that some "evolutionists" leave an opening for "the God people" because it really doesn't change their science.

Pope Benedict knows the science of adaptation and change in "evolution" is fact. It has been peer reviewed and proven. Now, you need to get him on record as supporting full blown Darwinism.

wink wink

re: #188 Infidel_jim

Why should one knowingly keep contradictory ideas?

We are talking about evolution. There needn't be any contradiction. It does not involve the origin of life, if I understand correctly.

re: #194 heliotrope

What's the current definition of "full blown Darwinism" if you wish us to defend your strawman forsooth?

I'll shut up now and let the thread continue...(been a loud mouth today)

New toys etc.

sorry all

Duzzre: #195 Dizzy26

BTW, you can get shirt on Web. In N Out has no plans to come to Hawaii. Shucks.
Here is current one.
[Link: shop.in-n-out.com...]

re: #175 heliotrope

Lecture if you will, I merely present the facts of spending decades as a peer reviewer in scientific inquiry in this area of inquiry.

Holy cow! If you've really spent "decades as a peer reviewer in scientific inquiry in this area of inquiry," I'm going to have to reassess the value of the whole peer review thing. One would think that the ability to write a coherent sentence would be a prerequisite.

/smells like troll in here

re: #199 pat

Duzz

BTW, you can get shirt on Web. In N Out has no plans to come to Hawaii. Shucks.
Here is current one.
[Link: shop.in-n-out.com...]

thanks Pat, I'll have to pass and let them do their advertising w/out me

re: #185 buzzsawmonkey

Kindly re-write the above in coherent English. It appears there is some point you are trying to communicate.

Glizzy? Was that the troll's name?

Speaking of ID, I see Ben Stein is scheduled for a Q & A interview on C-SPAN at 8:00 EST tonight. For anyone interested in watching. I won't be.

re: #175 heliotrope

Nope. Of course evolution isn't pre-determined. But, if you care to apply the odds of specific evolution to a species, you will run into mega-generations of positive adaption that will out last your own life span.

Your understand neither evolution nor probabilities.

re: #190 Thanos

To be honest, I am not sure of their name, they stay pretty cryptic. I've stumbled across a few of their sites in my travels, and they blew my mind.

These guys maybe?

Also, Hutton Gibson's group, which I think is different.

BBL. Y'all keep your troll sticks handy.

re: #176 jaunte

"if you care to apply the odds of specific evolution to a species, you will run into mega-generations of positive adaption"

This is a content-free statement.

Fair enough. Try altering the environment of a finch that would "encourage" it to evolve a certain bill and adapt a certain action. This (selection) is not a big deal when you deal with fruit flies and many plants. But "selection" in species that have a fairly long time curve between egg and reproduction will soon outstrip your own lifespan and probable funding interest. Natural "selection" is not that far removed from random selection.

I do not discard the theory, but there is a huge difference between hybridization and "natural" selection.

I recently spent considerable time in China with their Panda survival project. Would that anyone knew how to apply Darwinism to the equation.

re: #194 heliotrope

Oooookkkkaaaaay. And what the hell does this have to do with you claiming the pope does not believe in evolution?

Oh, that's a rhetorical questions. As we like to say in the lounge, you are now on ignore ignore ignore.

re: #199 pat

Duzz

BTW, you can get shirt on Web. In N Out has no plans to come to Hawaii. Shucks.
Here is current one.
[Link: shop.in-n-out.com...]

Poor Pat! :(

re: #196 scottishbuzzsaw

It does not involve the origin of life, if I understand correctly.

By extension it does. You end up working back wards until like Mel Brooks said "... it goes all the way back to the King....."
The argument is whether I was placed here with a purpose(mind you, purpose is a human idea) or it took eons and multiple trial and error to get here.
The element of time is the most incomprehensible portion of evolution that the the folks in I.D. league
easily ignore.
Hugh Hewitt ridicules evolution because he blindly simplifies 360 million years as if it were an interval that easily navigable and comprehensible.
Little by little you'd have to argue your way all the wa back to the Big Bang.

OT again FNC doing an in depth on pooty poot and the Russian military.

There is plate of "Hot Stuff" Thai food waiting for me and I can't resist it any more. Catch you guys later.

re: #210 Infidel_jim

The argument is whether I was placed here with a purpose(mind you, purpose is a human idea) or it took eons and multiple trial and error to get here.

The argument you present is a false dichotomy. There can be both eons and purpose.

re: #202 debutaunt

Glizzy? Was that the troll's name?

I am not a troll, but I am out of my comfort zone, for sure. I have been interested in this whole theme which seems to be important to LGF. I have no idea if Charles is an atheist with a mission or a heavy duty science guy who has a burr in his saddle over radical Intelligent Design political activism.

I have read this site daily for several years and commented only rarely (one or two times). When I read the Schloss stuff today, I blew a gasket.

I realize that many of you have formed a fraternity of commenters and that I am leaning in through the door. If I have to spend time getting initiated, I prefer to move on. No one needs to impose himself on an Elks Club finger pulling contest.

You can not lump Intelligent Design, creationism and religious faith into a neat package. Nor can you lump Darwinism, natural selection, evolution and adaptive behavior into one neat package.

Someone above suggests that I visit a pet store to learn about adaptive behavior. Well, many a simple genius has gone bankrupt in the genetics business. How about developing a cat that will produce useful hairballs without barfing on the carpet?

The attacks on my knowledge or ability to communicate are more revealing than salient.

re: #209 bebe's boobs destroy

Poor Pat! :(

Reread your comments in the cold light of day. You stand in stark contradiction of your own clever self.

I continue to recommend that you read the post, the Schloss essay and then try to follow the thread. Or not. You seem to be on autopilot.

re: #215 heliotrope

Hmm, where have we seen this before? You sound like a certain grouch's sock puppet.

re: #214 heliotrope

Speaking for myself, I don't want ID taught as science. The theory of Evolution is science. Science is not faith and faith is not science. However I believe that faith does preclude science. Science does not preclude faith. IOW I believe in a higher power and the Theory of Evolution.

re: #197 Thanos

I have no clue. It was Schloss who took off after Ben Stein and Darwinism and Charles who brought it to our attention. Ask them.

Certainly you are aware that the "science" in Darwinism was soon extended to eugenics, social Darwinism and modern political liberalism.

I am only sorry that Darwin the scientist isn't available to defend himself.

I will be glad to read your scientific opinions on race, the missing link and cosmology.

re: #219 heliotrope
Here we go. Darwins' theories have nothing in common with eugenics, social manipulation, liberals, or Hitler. I was ready to listen to your arguments, not now.

Listen evolution is junk.The real science is,dear girls and boys,regarding the origin of man,,we havent got a clue.No idea at all.Thats what we should be teaching in schools

re: #205 Lynn B.

These guys maybe?

Also, Hutton Gibson's group, which I think is different.

It was stuff in similar vein, and they tend to be Irish or Breton I've noticed, but those aren't the particular sites I stumbled on. One of these days I'll dig them up again. Ran across them while researching VB.

re: #219 heliotrope

Hitting all the DI Talking points I see. You'd be glad to argue more DI talking points that are extraneous to the discussion at hand is what you really mean.

He's saying "science leads to killing people " in different words.

re: #221 larado
You forgot...in your opinion. I seem to remember some fossils being found here and there that give us a clue to the origin of man. Now if you chose to disregard the well founded science surrounding these fossils that is your right.

re: #217 pingjockey

Speaking for myself, I don't want ID taught as science. The theory of Evolution is science. Science is not faith and faith is not science. However I believe that faith does preclude science. Science does not preclude faith. IOW I believe in a higher power and the Theory of Evolution.

You can not teach ID as science as it clearly can not be affirmed by the scientific method. The theory of evolution is not scientific fact. It is the most advanced theory, but it lacks proof through the application of the scientific method. (Otherwise, it would not be a theory.) Science does not preclude faith. The Darwinist branch of evolution theory certainly leads to a laboratory creation of life. The creation of life leads to the solution of the creation "myths" that have captured the imaginations of all mankind.

At 30,000 feet below the sea there is a volcanic vent with unique life forms surrounding it and depending upon it. Did the "creator" plan that or can science replicate the conditions and cause the organisms to arise spontaneously? Certainly, the latter is the goal of most biological scientists.

For some, this is a Pandora's box. For others, it is a scientific frontier.

Many here seem intent on promoting their conclusions rather than questioning their assumptions. It was ever thus.

As long as the subject of Darwin and Hitler have been brought up, I would like to invite anyone interested to attribute these quotes to their respective author(s):

Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to
struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He
has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each
other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct
species.

Next there is this:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

And:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

And finally:

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .

Just to make this easier, two quotes are from Chapter 6 of The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, a third quote is from Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, to which I will provide no link, and another is a quote from a letter Charles Darwin sent to William Graham, dated 3 July, 1881.

Personally I find all these quotes distasteful and disgusting. If anyone cares to show how the quotes from Darwin are taken out of context, please bring in as much additional context from the link as you think makes your case.

re: #220 pingjockey

Here we go. Darwins' theories have nothing in common with eugenics, social manipulation, liberals, or Hitler. I was ready to listen to your arguments, not now.

I did not say that Darwin sent his theory in that direction. Willing early adapters picked up his work and ran with it for their own purposes.

Help me here, I am not preaching. I am trying to help people get over their foregone conclusions on both sides.

If you have any interest in the Judeo-Christian ethic v moral relativism, this is a perfect venue for getting your feet wet.

"Adaptive behavior a term thrown into the mix to muddy the waters "?

The waters already are 'muddied " and have been ever since Darwin came back home ,and everybody attempted to extrapolate their own opinions into the findings he brought back with him .

The bottom line for all this bullshit-clever-remarking-and posturing is :

IS THE UNIVERSE RANDOM OR PURPOSED ?

Creation could be the instigator of evolution or evolution could be an illusion of creation .

Sorry kiddies , no one knows , no one can prove it ...all you can do is stick each other in the eye with your fingers -
Until the day you die . Then you will either know or become part of OBLIVION.

lol.... "everyone wants to go to heaven , but no one wants to die ."

-baseball coach after the ump made a bad call

re: #229 heliotrope
I absolutley loathe moral relativism.

re: #227 heliotrope

The theory of evolution is not scientific fact. It is the most advanced theory, but it lacks proof through the application of the scientific method. (Otherwise, it would not be a theory.)

It never fails...

re: #232 freetoken
At least once sometimes more on these threads.

......oh and BTW , whatever a presidential candidate believes regarding this......DON'T MEAN SHIT , and anyone basing their vote on such is...A MORON .

re: #224 Thanos

He's saying "science leads to killing people " in different words.

If I am the "he" in your comment, I respectfully say that you are nuts. Science is a rigid task. Science mixed with political intent and manipulated presentation is dangerous snake oil.

re: #236 buzzsawmonkey
42

re: #232 freetoken

It never fails...

Enlighten me. Oil is a fossil fuel created in the age of dinosaurs by ......

The theory ofevolution is a scientific fact: here are the resources any fool can check -----

The problem with evolution, at least as applied to human beings, is that civilization trumps natural selection.

Whereas a harsh environment tends to promote the survival of individuals who are hardy, our industrialized, civilized, and sadly socialized world not only ensures the survival of incompetent dysfunctional individuals, but encourages these individuals to breed in large numbers.

Take a trip to the UK sometime and learn about what are known as Chavs. This is a sub population within the UK who reside in public housing, subsist on public funds (welfare, aka the dole), and pursue lives marked by the complete absence of responsibility or productive activity. They start breeding at a young age. The more kids they have, the more money the state gives them. The result is a proliferation of social ills that even the lefties who created the housing projects and associated problems here would stand in awe of. Theodore Dalrymple wrote about this syndrome in "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass."

The flip side to this are the most capable and successful individuals that are produced within a society reproduce in lower numbers. The more education and money a woman makes, the less likely she is to have children. Now I'm not saying that women should be at home, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. I'm just pointing out that western civilization exerts a strong selective force against intelligent and capable individuals reproducing while at the same time encouraging the least intelligent and capable to have multiple offspring.

If this process continues unchecked, you wind up with a world full of useless idiots. When you look at how many leftists there are around today, and how many of them tend to be from the younger generation, I think it is pretty clear that the process of devolution is already well under way.

So what can be done about this?

1) Penalize dole recipients who have kids by cutting their benefits.
2) Provide tax breaks to people who have kids, but only if they are in a higher tax bracket.

In other words, pay the dole monkeys not to breed, and encourage the most productive members of society to have kids. Over the long run, the cumulative impact of these policies would improve the gene pool substantially.

BBL folks.

re: #228 ubercheesehead

The attempts to equate Darwin's writings with some level of moral culpability is mystifying. Darwin was developing a scientific hypothesis, Hitler a political diatribe. Can polemicists sound like scientists, and can science be used as a polemic? Certainly. But what difference does that make? I don't particularly like "An eye for an eye," and I think the notion that there were such punishments is barbaric. I think animal sacrifice is barbaric. I also think that's what passed for civilization at the time. Do I now claim that Jahweh is Evil beyond measure? I can point to the racist, sexist, and otherwise 'unenlightened' writings of many of our Founders. Does this mean that they did not seek something truly rare at the time, within the context available to them?

Darwin is not evolution. Darwin was a man, writing at a given period in history. Since then there have been on the order of 150 years of scientific proof of the fact and theory of evolution. This proof has no political or emotional cognate attached to it. It's just science. Get over it.

re: #231 pingjockey

I join with you in this.

But, Margaret Sanger was still radically influenced by her interpretation of Darwin's incomplete and emerging concepts of natural selection. It was not his scientific fault. It is the extremes others have dragged out of his investigations.

re: #228 ubercheesehead

Quote mining again I see in a vain attempt to prove that Darwin was eugeniscist. You never print the whole quote however.

Here's a link so people can read it in context
[Link: books.google.com...]

re: #239 leereyno

So your solution is eugenics? That's disgusting.

re: #228 ubercheesehead

Since you're going there, wanna play Who Said it: Hitler or Martin Luther?

re: #243 heliotrope

I suppose that Plato and the Spartans were influenced by Darwin as well. Go stuff it with your mis interpretation of science for political ends.

They're really coming out of the woodwork tonight.

re: #249 Sharmuta

They're really coming out of the woodwork tonight.

I just wish they had something new or insightful to say. Geez!

re: #230 Excaliber

"Adaptive behavior a term thrown into the mix to muddy the waters "?

The waters already are 'muddied " and have been ever since Darwin came back home ,and everybody attempted to extrapolate their own opinions into the findings he brought back with him .

The bottom line for all this bullshit-clever-remarking-and posturing is :

IS THE UNIVERSE RANDOM OR PURPOSED ?

Creation could be the instigator of evolution or evolution could be an illusion of creation .

Sorry kiddies , no one knows , no one can prove it ...all you can do is stick each other in the eye with your fingers -
Until the day you die . Then you will either know or become part of OBLIVION.

lol.... "everyone wants to go to heaven , but no one wants to die ."

-baseball coach after the ump made a bad call

My goodness, someone who sees the whole picture. Imagine that. I almost feel like I have company.

re: #234 Excaliber

......oh and BTW , whatever a presidential candidate believes regarding this......DON'T MEAN SHIT , and anyone basing their vote on such is...A MORON .

Yeah, well, I actually think a candidate's views on science and technology are highly relevant. And the really sad thing is that McCain has waffled badly on the teaching of ID, and has taken pains to show himself as no friend of the scientific community:

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

There are those who will say that defense science and technology would likely be highly supported in a McCain administration, and I can only hope that is true. But going out of your way to undermine basic research is really pretty stupid, all in all.

re: #227 heliotrope

The theory of evolution is not scientific fact. It is the most advanced theory, but it lacks proof through the application of the scientific method. (Otherwise, it would not be a theory.)

And you really expect us to believe you're involved with peer review processes after making a comment like that?

Whoa. What's up in here?

Seriously, do you have something new out there DI shills? What's the new candidate / poster child for ID?

re: #254 Charles

Just your usual crawling out of the woodwork.

re: #248 Thanos

I suppose that Plato and the Spartans were influenced by Darwin as well. Go stuff it with your mis interpretation of science for political ends.

Gosh, Thanos, I am just back from Greece where I conducted a two week seminar on the Cult of Asclepius at Epiduros. We missed you and your titan buddies there.

Just what connection did you wish to imply between Plato and the Spartans? Some sort of 10th century b.c. hangover from the Cyclades, no doubt.

re: #239 leereyno

They like that viewpoint in Communist China, you would fit right in.

re: #257 heliotrope

No, you are talking about eugenicists and if you fail to see that the idea pre dated both Darwin and the theory of evolution then you aren't very well read are you?

re: #257 heliotrope

Gosh, you're an idiot.

It's like the commercial, I haven't read "The Republic," but I just got back from Greece....

re: #261 Thanos

It's like the commercial, I haven't read "The Republic," but I just got back from Greece....

I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

re: #261 Thanos
... and boy, are my talking points tired.