Fred Reed on Evolution

[Peez]

The really ironic thing here is that no one in the thread has actually denounced Oecolampadius as a creationist. Lots of people saying he's using creationist arguments and techniques though...

I guess it's the lack of attention to detail that's his real problem.

It seems pretty clear that the intention from the beginning was to goad people into 'denouncing him as a creationist'. This would be something like a poster asking for evidence that 'blacks' are not inferior to 'whites', pointing out what they see as evidence that 'blacks' are in fact inferior to 'whites', being evasive and refusing to address evidence to the contrary, and then complaining that people think that they might be a racist.

Peez

 

[Learner]

Belief implies an ideological commitment. People say "I believe in <whatever>" as a piece of their identity. They're contrasting themselves with others who chose another apparent "option" and believed something else. So we get believers in this and believers in that, and it just gets more tribal from there.

It goes back to what people were saying about a believer fulfilling personal needs instead of just forgetting himself (ie, forgetting his needs) and looking at nature for the answers in total disregard of personal and ideological issues.

I don't think it's that complicated. Believers simply believe what feels good to them. Their feelings are their beliefs, no knowledge necessary. In fact, believing is a substitute for intellectual curiosity. Look at all the pseudoknowledge that religious people create with their feelings. All that pseudoknowledge and no real knowledge. Suggesting that a creator uses natural selection and evolution in its creation is a perfect example of offering up more worthless pseudoknowledge.

"Because it feels good for them". True for a large number of believers .. in religion. However Intellectual curiosity is there for those who still believe in creation to be quite plausible and not neccesarily belonging to any "religion" .. for example the picture you describe are of the type ; church goers and their pastors that preach gospel and not science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

However Intellectual curiosity is there for those who still believe in creation to be quite plausible

And exactly how would you gauge creation to be plausible, Learner?

 

[Malintent]

However Intellectual curiosity is there for those who still believe in creation to be quite plausible

And exactly how would you gauge creation to be plausible, Learner?

... and how does Learner define "intellectual curiosity" in this context? I doubt many would define it as, "interest in finding data points that do not independently disagree with preconceived notions".

 

[Sarpedon]

And a GENE is a section of DNA, is it not?

Umm, not really. Only sorta.

"Gene" is an abstract concept related to DNA. A "Gene" is the DNA necessary to produce a particular observed effect. This DNA does not necessarily need to be contiguous on a strand, or does it necessarily only do only that one thing. So to think of a DNA strand as being a collection of 'sections' each of which is a 'gene' that does one thing is incorrect. Think of Genes as more like the factors that produce weather effects, or the conditions that influence economic trends.

What DNA does is produce proteins. The composition of proteins in a cell create its structure and behavior. How these changes are activated, and how they express themselves is an amazingly complex field of knowledge. It is one thing to simplify something to an analogy in order to communicate it. It is another to adopt the simplification as what you think the thing is.

Maybe if you would take the time to actually go and learn about the things you are talking about, you would not have these simple misconceptions. I recommend you read "Your Inner Fish," by Neil Shubin.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think it's that complicated. Believers simply believe what feels good to them. Their feelings are their beliefs, no knowledge necessary. In fact, believing is a substitute for intellectual curiosity. Look at all the pseudoknowledge that religious people create with their feelings. All that pseudoknowledge and no real knowledge. Suggesting that a creator uses natural selection and evolution in its creation is a perfect example of offering up more worthless pseudoknowledge.

"Because it feels good for them". True for a large number of believers .. in religion. However Intellectual curiosity is there for those who still believe in creation to be quite plausible and not neccesarily belonging to any "religion" .. for example the picture you describe are of the type ; church goers and their pastors that preach gospel and not science.

The dynamic operating in this thread about creationism is the same dynamic that operates in those church pews, namely that there is no middle ground. For believers it's either eternal reward or eternal punishment. When they talk about evolution, evolution better have all the answers or it's worthless. Their political favorites are wonderful people. Their political opponents are evil.

With believers, the good will always be the enemy of the perfect. That's why good science isn't worth shit to them, even though they hurry to their doctors instead of staying put and praying for a miracle from their space king. It's why they offer up stupid explanations for natural events. Spare a kids life and it's a miracle. Drown a half million and it's the space king hating gays.

So it's no wonder they villify evolution while they run to their doctor for a stronger antibiotic. They're just not smart people, unfortunately.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A few months ago, I came across an article by an interesting chap named Fred Reed
titled "Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution" (Google the title and several links will come up). Although he understands and accepts certain tenets of evolution...

"He understands.. certain tenets of evolution". This implies he doesn't understand other tenets of evolution. So why are we talking about his opinion then?

Did he develop an alternative and falsifiable theory?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So why are we talking about his opinion then?

Because he chants the 'simply asking open minded questions' martyr song to people who are predisposed to accept it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So why are we talking about his opinion then?

Because he chants the 'simply asking open minded questions' martyr song to people who are predisposed to accept it.

I'm not saying I disagree with evolution. I'm just saying that my cat likes to sleep behind the curtain. How did my cat evolve to want to sleep behind that curtain?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not saying I disagree with evolution. I'm just saying that my cat likes to sleep behind the curtain. How did my cat evolve to want to sleep behind that curtain?

Hmmmm.
So if we can generate life in a test tube, and mutate that life form to want to sleep behind your curtain, that'll prove it's a mutation that causes your cat to do that!

 

[bilby]

'this is what we think happened, and it's because of the following observations...'?

I agree with you here, and this is the position I myself take, except that I believe that the process might entail more than we know at present. Fred Reed is a bit over the top (he's a gonzo journalist, so what do you expect), but I was intrigued by his claim that by simply asking questions about evolution he was denounced as a creationist, so I wanted to give it a whirl myself.

Oecolampadius out.

*wink*

Oddly enough, somebody who 'simply asks questions' about the spherical Earth hypothesis, is likely to be assumed to be a flat Earther.

That's what happens when there is a well supported theory with a large body of science behind it; and a single well known counter proposal supported by a non-trivial number of anti-science people who demand that their religious interpretation is instead correct.

The field is dominated by the 'approximately spherical Earth' and 'flat Earth' hypotheses, to the virtual exclusion of all others, and honest questions rapidly lead the questioner to the scientific consensus position; so it's a safe bet that anyone who is constantly asking stupid questions is trying to support the opposing camp.

Of course, it's possible that someone out there is pushing an 'icosohedral Earth' hypothesis; but it's not a position that we should expect to encounter.

If someone constantly questions the theory of evolution in a manner that makes clear that they don't understand what it actually says, it's a fair bet that that person is a creationist.

If Mr Reed is, in fact, a Lamarkian, or some other brand of opposer of modern Evolutionary theory, then he has my apologies (but not my respect, as his arguments remain logically fallacious, regardless of what he is trying to prove by them).

 

[Underseer]

A few months ago, I came across an article by an interesting chap named Fred Reed titled "Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution" (Google the title and several links will come up). Although he understands and accepts certain tenets of evolution, he forthrightly states that he has problems with other elements of evolution. When he's brought these concerns up to professionals in the field, they've responded by denouncing him as a creationist without really addressing his questions. Memorable quote from the article: "The greatest intellectual divide is not between those who believe one thing and those who believe another, but between those who have an emotional need to believe something fervently and those who can say, 'I don’t know.'"

I'd be interested in others' take on the article.

I doubt gravity for ideological reasons. After all, gravity is just a theory, so I can't understand why so many people take it seriously!

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've evolved your code to make it seriously more persistant in line with Pope Darwin I's 1859 encyclical On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Again:= True

Do While Again and Again

Begin anti-science:

Bomb, I am sorry, but in trying to explain the (impossible) path nature took to get from shape number 1 to shape number 7 , which was only one question, you have not only failed to convince my unmoving mind, but now you have created 5 additional problems with this so-called (just a) theory. Now explain the path from shape 1 to 2 AND 2 to 3 AND 3 to 4.... etc... Se what happens when you try to learn yourself something? You just get stupider. Once upon a time you had one simple question that was already easily answered (obviously, that god does everything so shut up), and now your mental gymnastics with the sole purpose of denying the god and his glory has only served to create all these new problems and questions. What's wrong with you people!!??!

:End anti-science

Loop

 

[bilby]

Creationist: If A evolved into Z, then there would be a transitional form between the two
Paleontologists: Hey, look, we found an M
Creationist: If A evolved into Z via M, then there would be two transitional forms.
Paleontologists: Well, we found a G and an S
Creationist: Now there are four gaps! Your 'Theory' is full of holes, and I refuse to even consider it until you show me the missing link between A and Z.

Repeat ad nauseam

 

[rousseau]

Look dude, you're basically faced with a choice here:

- Do you want to understand how the world works or not?

If yes, listen to these people, if no, run away as fast as you can.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look dude, you're basically faced with a choice here:

- Do you want to understand how the world works or not?

If yes, listen to these people, if no, run away as fast as you can.

They already have run away.