The Creationist Museum

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1340252780' post='2446989']
that wasnt in response to you btw, that was just a general response to L_D
[/quote]

I didn't think so. Just my head spinned reading your statement. That's all.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='blacksheep' timestamp='1340283333' post='2447054']
wow..didn't expect my post to get so much heat...i'm intrigued and enjoying the debate
[/quote]
It's amazing where a thread can go when you take off the off topic rule. That's what I love about this forum. BTW I think this is the most avvesome thread eva thanks to his avvesomeness. L_D.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340246234' post='2446946']
I believe you have some how misunderstood me.
[/quote]
Nuh! I was just being a troll face as usual.

[mortify]

[i][b]Dr David Berlinski, Post Doc in molecular bio from Columbia Univ, PhD in Philosophy from Princeton, taught mathematics at standard, and is a stauch critique of darwinism. Is it because he's a Christian fundementalist? No, he's a secular Jew.[/b][/i]


[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8&feature=relmfu"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8&feature=relmfu[/url]

[sixpence]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340340915' post='2447335']
[i][b]Dr David Berlinski, Post Doc in molecular bio from Columbia Univ, PhD in Philosophy from Princeton, taught mathematics at standard, and is a stauch critique of darwinism. Is it because he's a Christian fundementalist? No, he's a secular Jew.[/b][/i]


[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8&feature=relmfu[/media]
[/quote]

hmm... how about some facts instead of, oh look at me, I question evolution. I was also off-put by the fact that he talked about it as an explanation for the origin of life...which it IS NOT....

[Papist]

Scientific proof of Evolution.

[img]http://sclick.net/cool%20gadgets/coolest-newest-high-tech-fun-gadget/16/coolest-best-latest-top-new-fun-high-technology-electronic-gadgets-russian-doll-cellph-phone-evolution_1.jpg[/img]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Sad to say that Berlinski is one of the crankier anti-evo contrarians/crackpots that I know of. (Funny that some would comb the interwebs looking for any charlatan who will confirm their bias rather than first educating themselves on the actual science.)
In that little video there were some anecdotes about scientists he knows who roll their eyes at evolutionary theory. I can't exactly verify that. He also claims that von Neumann laughed and hooted at evolution. This is a preposterous claim worthy of some hooting. [url="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/von-neumann-on.html"]Here is some information about what von Neumann actually said[/url]. Beware of shameless cranks and pathological contrarians, mate.

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340381053' post='2447451']
Sad to say that Berlinski is one of the crankier anti-evo contrarians/crackpots that I know of. (Funny that some would comb the interwebs looking for any charlatan who will confirm their bias rather than first educating themselves on the actual science.)
In that little video there were some anecdotes about scientists he knows who roll their eyes at evolutionary theory. I can't exactly verify that. He also claims that von Neumann laughed and hooted at evolution. This is a preposterous claim worthy of some hooting. [url="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/von-neumann-on.html"]Here is some information about what von Neumann actually said[/url]. Beware of shameless cranks and pathological contrarians, mate.
[/quote]

Can you recommend scientists that do have a legit appraisal of evolution, that is not contrary to that of the Church's?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340382644' post='2447465']
Can you recommend scientists that do have a legit appraisal of evolution, that is not contrary to that of the Church's?
[/quote]
The book I recommended earlier is good: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/"][i]Finding Darwin's God[/i][/url]. The author is pretty razzle dazzle imho. I think he's funny, and he's Roman Catholic. Here's a talk by the author which I recommend.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBMgNOXperg[/media]

There are plenty of science books that I like that are by biologists whose religious affiliation, if any, I do not know, but it doesn't matter if it's just presenting the science. I don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on this topic, but I can recommend Futuyma's [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Edition-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/"]Evolution[/url] [/i]textbook. There is some excellent light reading out there. On my list would be Shubin's [url="http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/"][i]Your Inner Fish[/i][/url], and Carroll's [url="http://www.amazon.com/Endless-Forms-Most-Beautiful-Science/dp/0393327795/"][i]Endless Forms Most Beautiful[/i][/url]. Carl Zimmer has some books that might interest you, such as [url="http://www.amazon.com/The-Tangled-Bank-Introduction-Evolution/dp/0981519474/"]The Tangled Bank[/url].

I've not read it, but Francis Collins - a highly respected geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health and former head of the Human Genome Project - has a book called [url="http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744/"]The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief[/url]. He's critical of creationism and the intelligent design movement although he's an evangelic Christian and Pope Benedict appointed him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[mortify]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340381053' post='2447451']
Sad to say that Berlinski is one of the crankier anti-evo contrarians/crackpots that I know of. (Funny that some would comb the interwebs looking for any charlatan who will confirm their bias rather than first educating themselves on the actual science.)
In that little video there were some anecdotes about scientists he knows who roll their eyes at evolutionary theory. I can't exactly verify that. He also claims that von Neumann laughed and hooted at evolution. This is a preposterous claim worthy of some hooting. [url="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/von-neumann-on.html"]Here is some information about what von Neumann actually said[/url]. Beware of shameless cranks and pathological contrarians, mate.
[/quote]

I'm dissapointed LD, didn't think you would throw ad hominem. He's simply skeptical of a theory that is ultimately absurd. The complexity we see around us is not the result of a blind process, why does that bother you so much?

[mortify]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340382644' post='2447465']
Can you recommend scientists that do have a legit appraisal of evolution, that is not contrary to that of the Church's?
[/quote]

Such a theory of evolution would no longer be darwinian, since it would be a divinely guided process.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340519117' post='2448262']
The complexity we see around us is not the result of a blind process, why does that bother you so much?
[/quote]
I don't think anyone here has been arguing against a divinely guided process. I certainly don't! My interpretation is that God created science including 'evolution' and science 'evolution' created. As an analogy there are two ways that I can make a shaft stick in a target. I can run across the field with the shaft in hand and stick it in the target or I can make a bow stretch the string and aim knowing full well that the shaft will stick in the target when I release it. In the second example I have no direct involvement but since by physics I know what will happen and I've set up the required conditions, then I am still the reason the shaft stuck in the target and it is not a blind process.
Further more if in the science of evolution there were holes that science could not explain, it would appear as though God had tried to create using science, but there were actions which were too complex and he was unable to create a complete scientific method of filling the gaps and had to resort to just making it so. This would seem to make God pretty lame. A mixed bag simply won't do it for me. Either creation is the explanation and the evolution that we observe is an illusion or there is a scientific explanation for the whole show.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340519117' post='2448262']
I'm dissapointed LD, didn't think you would throw ad hominem. He's simply skeptical of a theory that is ultimately absurd. The complexity we see around us is not the result of a blind process, why does that bother you so much?
[/quote]
Okay, I'll take your bait.

An ad hominem fallacy is when one uses criticism of a person as a way of avoiding their argument(s). What I've done is share with you my opinion of the dude's credibility, since you seemingly invoked him as an authority. I've been aware of him for ten years or so and like to think I have some sense of how reliable his claims tend to be.
I don't recall any actual arguments in the video. The guy made some anecdotal claims, as well as a claim regarding von Neumann that I could actually look into and which couldn't be more false.

As I've said before, there is nothing wrong with skepticism toward anything and I think we should all be skeptical of claims that anyone makes about reality. (We should also be particularly skeptical of ourselves when our opinions about a subject are clearly incommensurate with our actual knowledge of that subject.) But anyway, being skeptical in a spirit of truth-seeking is one thing; manifesting a habit of making bogus claims about evolution is another. In my opinion, Berlinksi is generally the latter. My intention in sharing this opinion is that of a friendly warning. Also, I encourage you to learn more about the science before deciding that it's 'absurd.' I think if you do this with intellectual honesty you will come to be less impressed by the claims of 'creation science' and discovery institute people. This has certainly been my experience over the years.

And I see by your last statement that my prior posts have been in vain. This is discouraging.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1340519217' post='2448264']
Such a theory of evolution would no longer be darwinian, since it would be a divinely guided process.
[/quote]
So, the past five pages of this thread never happened. That's encouraging. :-/

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340244303' post='2446925']
Whatever way God created and creates life, He creates life. God could have used a Neo-Darwinian structure to do it. I have doubts that He did, yes based on Doctrine in part for big and good reasons, but it isn't the main reason and most certainly not the only. My doctrinal concerns about the this theory is, perhaps, based more on how it is presented by some Neo-Darwinists when it is used as atheistic dogma or denies the existence of our first parents.[/quote]
I hear ya bro, but the problem with Adam & Eve that I think you're alluding to is based on the study of human genetics and I don't know how relevant neo-Darwinian controversies would be. The problem in a nutshell is that human genetic variation excludes the possibility of a single breeding pair in the past history of [i]Homo sapiens[/i]. This is a pretty different topic. There is a thread about it in Transmundane that includes some good reading material. I may have to bump that thread now. Thanks for mentioning this.

[Mark of the Cross]

[img]http://www.epiclol.com/cdn/pictures/2012/06/fat-dinosaur-is-an-o_1339401252_epiclolcom.jpg[/img]