Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri Aug 31 2007 - 18:43:57 EDT

The sooner Wells starts valuing accuracy in all his writing the better.

What I find most offensive is the way he implies he is an orthodox Christian in the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design p 169 ff.

I for one prefer to worship Jesus than Mr Moon

Peter, do you mind me asking, but are you a member of the Unification Church, rather than an evangelical Christian?

Michael

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Peter Loose
  To: 'Gregory Arago' ; 'Janice Matchett' ; 'George Murphy' ; 'Alexanian, Moorad'
  Cc: 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
  Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:41 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

   

   

   

  Who says that 'science' is neutral wrt to Theism?

   

  Combined in one 'story', that of the Peppered Moth, reported in London and writ large for all to see, is the poverty of evidential support for neo-Darwinism and its evangelising anti-God zeal:

   

   "The August 25 story in The Independent quotes Majerus as saying: "The peppered moth story is easy to understand, because it involves things that we are familiar with: Vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death. That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand."24

  On this list I saw some glowing over this Majerus story and taking Dr Jonathan Wells to task for his stance re Kettlewell and the Peppered Moth. In a 2,500 word plus paper just posted, Dr Jonathan Wells has demonstrated his characteristic analytical style as he unpacks the story. That may just inspire a few humble apologies to be given?

   

  Here are two brief extracts from the paper -

   

  "So crucial evidence for Darwin's theory - the origin of species by means of natural selection - is missing. And peppered moths don't provide it.

   

  Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportions of two varieties in a pre-existing species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place.

   

  So the peppered myth is not only dead, but also irrelevant."
  ..

   

  "Instead, it is the promoters of Darwinism who are frightened, because what seemed to be the most "visual" evidence for their doctrine is gone. It is not the "anti-evolution lobby" that is in a panic to attack the peppered myth, but Darwinists who are in a panic to save it. Witness the giddy zeal with which the perversely misnamed National Center for Science Education is now praising Majerus's lecture.25 And witness Majerus's mind-numbing conclusion: The "fact of Darwinian evolution" shows that humans invented God and that there will be "no second coming; no helping hand from on high."26"

  Read it in full here:

   

  Exhuming the Peppered Mummy
  By: Jonathan Wells
  Discovery Institute
  August 30, 2007

   

  http://www.discovery.org/a/4198

   

   

  Peter

   

   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
  Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:57 PM
  To: Janice Matchett; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad
  Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
  Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

   

  The point is taken, Janice, if I understand what you are pointing to, that George Murphy, as well as many other TE's on this list, 'appear' to defend theistic evolution almost as strongly as they defend their Christian faiths.

   

  'As long as it carries an evolution label' is a type of ideological rhetoric that I confronted a few months ago (perhaps several) at ASA with threads asking for examples of 'things that don't evolve (into being or having become).' The only answer given by the strong TEists was the Deity, G-D, whereas weak TEists came up with additional answers. It was like pulling teeth with Ted Davis to reach the minimal One thing that doesn't evolve (into being or having become).

   

  It really only takes a simple thought experiment to expel the notion of 'universalistic evolutionism' (who could defend this?) from the mind of any person who accepts the provisionality of science; all scientific theories, even the 'theory' of evolution, are someday to be eclipsed. What will TE's do with their theology when the 'concept' they have anchored their theology to has been over-written?

   

  'Rubbish,' is what they will say, what they do say. But is it really so much more rubbish than efforts to clarify effects of pattern recognition and specificationalism (ism...ism, Dembskiism)? Theological evolutionism (and we should note carefully the 'ism' here) is not that much different on a practical level of science from atheologial evolutionism. Its theorists may hide behind methodological (MN) imperative, but for learned observers this TE tic/strategy/perspective is fooling no one.

  Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

  "It would be great if all disagreements among Christians could be dealt with as in-house matters. But when some Christians present arguments in the public square which reflect badly on the Christian faith & make it a target for legitimate criticism and even understandable ridicule, what are we to do? To take an example much more egregious than Behe, are we to let Ken Ham's creation museum be the public face of a Christian view of science? Should we let unbelievers think that we're willing to tolerate every kind of rubbish as long as it carries a Christian label?" ~ George Murphy 10:15 AM 8/30/2007

  @ Or put another way:

  "...when atheist evolutionists present arguments in the public square which reflect badly on the TEs & make it a target for legitimate criticism and even understandable ridicule, what are we to do? To take an example much more egregious than evolutionist Richard Dawkins, are we to let Ken Ham's creation museum be the public face of a Christian view of science? Should we let unbelievers think that we're willing to tolerate every kind of rubbish as long as it carries a evolution label?"

  ~ Janice ... http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200705/0824.html

   

    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.12/979 - Release Date: 29/08/2007 20:21

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 31 18:45:11 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 18:45:11 EDT