The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen

[moktan]

someone with impeccable intellectual and scientific credentials who has written quite extensively on faith, science and God is Polkinghorne...many of the ideas that i have expressed/appropriated are from him...
Polkinghorne admits that the Problem of Existence of Evil is one of the most serious intellectual objection to the existence of God...a matter that he tries to get around by invoking the concept of freewill....
reading even the wiki entry on the man can be quite revealing if one wants to get a handle on what folks on the other side of the debate think...Polkinhorne is not your run of the mill creationist..in fact he has locked horns with quite a few zealots from the creationist camp and feel that such extreme advocates do more harm than good to this cause.....
and yes Psychotropic..music is where we can happily meet after all...science makes its recording and reproduction possible while it must be God who has given us that faculty to be so rapturous about it....man(or at least some of them) sadly i must say, has unfortunately put it out of reach of many ordinary mortals by rampant over pricing..but that i guess has been dealt with in another thread......

 

[thevortex]

This is what baffles me. An apparently rational person, accepts that religion's explanations are based on 'faith' which is a nice word for 'fiction' and would still place the theory of evolution on the same footing as that fiction. It completely baffles me, but I guess that's how faith works.

If the implication is that my belief is faith-based, I have already clarified on that point. The fact is that there is nothing at all in science as far as evolution theory is concerned to believe that it has the upper hand over the creationists and other camps. Nothing at all as per scientific standards, that is.

As I have repeated myself that does not necessarily mean that we have to believe in fiction as you say. We can either choose sides or look on as interested onlookers. The problem I have with the science camp is that it wants for people to accept its postulates as the 'absolute truth' when it cannot begin to explain several gaping holes. If a member from the spiritual side comes to me with the same 'absolute truth', the same applies of course.

Finally I dont understand why belief in fiction is to be looked down upon - if that is what faith is. Everyday in our life the control that we think we exercise is nothing if not fiction. Any set of unforeseen events may happen at any point of time. If life were to be reduced to absolutes some day, that may be the end of romance. It is the questing which keeps us all interested - even the scientists

 

[psychotropic]

This is precisely the problem, and this is lifted straight out of the rulebook of the 'intelligent design' advocates. It is ludicrous to claim that there is "nothing at all in science" as far as evolution is concerned. "nothing at all as per scientific standards." That, with all due respect, is utter rubbish.

No scientist worth his salt will claim that a theory has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for it to have scientific weight. To make this situation binary is nothing but sleight of hand, and more in keeping with the creationists. It is this same shameful sleight of hand that is used by 'intelligent design' advocates to claim that 'intelligent design' must be taught in schools. In addition to all the wonderful serious reading material recommended here, perhaps you should also read about the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Have you been touched by HIS noodly appendage?

Mr. Ramanujam's posts on hypotheses, theories and laws clearly illustrates this point. In light of that discussion, would you care to demonstrate to me on what basis you have claimed that "nothing at all in science" supports evolution. I am very interested to hear this. You claim there are shortcomings. can you explain these shortcomings and demonstrate whether they are significant enough to undermine the theory or mere gaps borne out of a lack of information. Are you able to offer any fundamental flaws or defects in the theory itself?

And again, why is rigour the exclusive preserve of scientific theories? Even the theologists (who consider themselves akin to scientists) will claim that their study is rigorous. In light of this to run away from putting faith based claims to a rigorous standard claiming that it is "faith based" and therefore not subject to any proof, is evasive and devalues the claims right there.

A rigorous, rational and scientific examination cannot equate faith based claims and the theory of evolution. In order to equate the two, first you need to use some sleight of hand (such as an artificially rigorous standard) to devalue the theory of evolution and some more sleight of hand to release the faith based claims from a rigorous examination. Yes, once this is done, you can consider the two claims equal, but then any claims to this being the product of a rational evaluation would be ludicrous, at best.

The fact is that there is nothing at all in science as far as evolution theory is concerned to believe that it has the upper hand over the creationists and other camps. Nothing at all as per scientific standards, that is.

 

[psychotropic]

By the way, this wikipedia article has some interesting viewpoints assembled.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thevortex]

This is precisely the problem, and this is lifted straight out of the rulebook of the 'intelligent design' advocates. It is ludicrous to claim that there is "nothing at all in science" as far as evolution is concerned. "nothing at all as per scientific standards." That, with all due respect, is utter rubbish.

No scientist worth his salt will claim that a theory has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for it to have scientific weight. To make this situation binary is nothing but sleight of hand, and more in keeping with the creationists. It is this same shameful sleight of hand that is used by 'intelligent design' advocates to claim that 'intelligent design' must be taught in schools. In addition to all the wonderful serious reading material recommended here, perhaps you should also read about the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Have you been touched by HIS noodly appendage?

Mr. Ramanujam's posts on hypotheses, theories and laws clearly illustrates this point. In light of that discussion, would you care to demonstrate to me on what basis you have claimed that "nothing at all in science" supports evolution. I am very interested to hear this. You claim there are shortcomings. can you explain these shortcomings and demonstrate whether they are significant enough to undermine the theory or mere gaps borne out of a lack of information. Are you able to offer any fundamental flaws or defects in the theory itself?

And again, why is rigour the exclusive preserve of scientific theories? Even the theologists (who consider themselves akin to scientists) will claim that their study is rigorous. In light of this to run away from putting faith based claims to a rigorous standard claiming that it is "faith based" and therefore not subject to any proof, is evasive and devalues the claims right there.

A rigorous, rational and scientific examination cannot equate faith based claims and the theory of evolution. In order to equate the two, first you need to use some sleight of hand (such as an artificially rigorous standard) to devalue the theory of evolution and some more sleight of hand to release the faith based claims from a rigorous examination. Yes, once this is done, you can consider the two claims equal, but then any claims to this being the product of a rational evaluation would be ludicrous, at best.

First, I am going to have to ask you whether you took the pains of going through the links I had provided. This even though I am yet to read through the books you and others so kindly have referred me to.

If you read the information on the links (dissentfromdarwin may make for some quick and interesting reading before going onto the much more detailed blow by blow dissection of the theory in darwinspredictions). Your questions are answered in full in those links.

I feel you are ignoring my last line in the quoted statement. 'Nothing at all as per scientific standards'. In science, for something to be taken as fact, there must be proof. Irrefutable and preferably demonstrable. Does the evolution theory of Darwin appear to you to fall into this category? If not, then I do not see where the scientists have the presumed upper hand in this argument.

I do not much fancy the idea that since a theory has about 60 % proof in support of as opposed to 40% contrary to its postulates, it has to be better than anything else.

Take the Hindu epics alone - Mahabharata and Ramayana. Not all of it can be dismissed as fiction. There is archaeological evidence supporting a lot of what is said in those epics - I am sure you are aware.

Please dont construe this as my support for the creationism angle. That it most certainly is not. If your refuge is science then the basics of science demand proof. If there are anomalies, then it is a work in progress. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[thevortex]

No scientist worth his salt will claim that a theory has to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for it to have scientific weight.

Are you sure about that, psychotropic? Do you believe that scientists venture out theories without adequate and often demonstrable proof to back them up?

In the case of Darwin - in his defense rather - most of the evidence against his theory has come after his time. But then that is how science works. Most of the great scientists of yore got their credit posthumously.

To make this situation binary is nothing but sleight of hand, and more in keeping with the creationists. It is this same shameful sleight of hand that is used by 'intelligent design' advocates to claim that 'intelligent design' must be taught in schools. In addition to all the wonderful serious reading material recommended here, perhaps you should also read about the church of the flying spaghetti monster. Have you been touched by HIS noodly appendage?

I hope that this discussion may remain impassioned yet perfectly civil. Lets not obfuscate into what the intelligent design camp says and whether the faith based system offered by religion is better than or worse than what Darwin says. If science has to compare notes with religion on who is closer to the finishing line (which both parties cannot at present see), I fail to see why one side thinks it is superior to the other.

And no, I am not wholly discounting similar follies (in my mind) in the creationism camp as well. The fact is neither side has irrefutable proof. What we believe boils down to what makes us comfortable in the end. And when you realize that we are and what we stand for changes over time, well, that
makes me realize that whether we were created or were evolved from monkeys, the most important aspect is that we are as yet alive and able to experience this wonder of sentient life.

And no, I am not against scientific curiosity. I am very curious myself.

Cheers

 

[psychotropic]

Yup, I did go through your links

Dissent from Darwin is run (and the domain name owned, I checked the WHOIS) by the 'Discovery Institute' an intelligent design advocate!!! You might as well have quoted from the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

Darwin's Predictions is by Cornelius Hunter, again from the Discovery Institute. Seriously vortex, to use anything by the discovery institute does NOT help your case. This is pseudo-science at its worst.

The third link you provided is interesting, and merely confirms that evolution is a fact, but perhaps works differently from the way Darwin envisaged it.

So, you have cited two 'intelligent design' advocates and one person who confirms the theory of evolution. Do you have anything more to offer to discredit evolution? I can find you N number of detailed websites claiming anything from that the jews destroyed the world trade centre, to elvis is still alive, that doesn't make it worth anything!

You have somehow managed to convince yourself that evolution is less than what it is, by reading the babblings of the intelligent design activists. You do yourself a gross disservice there. Perhaps a reading of Dawkins will remedy this situation

I feel you are ignoring my last line in the quoted statement. 'Nothing at all as per scientific standards'. In science, for something to be taken as fact, there must be proof. Irrefutable and preferably demonstrable. Does the evolution theory of Darwin appear to you to fall into this category? If not, then I do not see where the scientists have the presumed upper hand in this argument.

I do not much fancy the idea that since a theory has about 60 % proof in support of as opposed to 40% contrary to its postulates, it has to be better than anything else.

Take the Hindu epics alone - Mahabharata and Ramayana. Not all of it can be dismissed as fiction. There is archaeological evidence supporting a lot of what is said in those epics - I am sure you are aware.

Please dont construe this as my support for the creationism angle. That it most certainly is not. If your refuge is science then the basics of science demand proof. If there are anomalies, then it is a work in progress. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[thevortex]

Actually while going through psycho's link at Wikipedia, I went through this one as well:

Objections to evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to its title, it is not an article against evolution theory. It simply attempts to shoot down all criticism against evolution theory. It made for some very interesting reading.

 

[gobble]

Actually while going through psycho's link at Wikipedia, I went through this one as well:

Objections to evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to its title, it is not an article against evolution theory. It simply attempts to shoot down all criticism against evolution theory. It made for some very interesting reading.

There is a lot of information like this passing around cleverly disguised as something else. The English media in India is particularly adept at this, but I'm digressing.

Thanks for the links questioning evolution. Food for thought I intend to devour one day!

Regards

 

[thevortex]

Yup, I did go through your links

Dissent from Darwin is run (and the domain name owned, I checked the WHOIS) by the 'Discovery Institute' an intelligent design advocate!!! You might as well have quoted from the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

Darwin's Predictions is by Cornelius Hunter, again from the Discovery Institute. Seriously vortex, to use anything by the discovery institute does NOT help your case. This is pseudo-science at its worst.

The third link you provided is interesting, and merely confirms that evolution is a fact, but perhaps works differently from the way Darwin envisaged it.

So, you have cited two 'intelligent design' advocates and one person who confirms the theory of evolution. Do you have anything more to offer to discredit evolution? I can find you N number of detailed websites claiming anything from that the jews destroyed the world trade centre, to elvis is still alive, that doesn't make it worth anything!

You have somehow managed to convince yourself that evolution is less than what it is, by reading the babblings of the intelligent design activists. You do yourself a gross disservice there. Perhaps a reading of Dawkins will remedy this situation

Psychotropic - do you perhaps believe that who says something is more important than what is being said? If so, then I must excuse myself from the discussion.

As I have asserted time and again, you convince yourself wrongly that I am from the opposite camp! Why is that? If somebody has doubts about Darwin's theory is that someone automatically relegated to the creationism camp? That appears too simplistic - even to a novice in science (and religion) like me.

I, for one, always have believed and hopefully will in the future as well, that there are always two sides to a coin and will happily read Dawkins as well as not dismiss out of hand any inconvenient questions raised by people on the evolution theory as propounded by Darwin.

 

[psychotropic]

Yes in typical cases it is the 'what' that is more important than the 'who' but when the 'who' in question are essentially religionists with an axe to grind and a propaganda objective, the 'who' becomes very relevant. These are not academic or scientific sources you are citing. And pardon me if I don't treat propaganda and academic writing in the same manner.

I am not a qualified scientist to scientifically rebut what the Discovery Institute wants to say, because it is easy to conjure up scientific sounding stuff in support of a claim, to fool the non-scientists.

But I do know that the discovery institute is a right-wing, conservative, Christian organisation with one single objective. In light of this, do excuse me for giving the 'who' a great deal of importance. These ID chappies are masters of propaganda, right up there with the Nazis and the Soviets, and it's unfortunate that so many non-scientists can be easily fooled by this kind of stuff.

I would be grateful if there were any biologists on these forums who can go through the darwin's predictions site and discredit the stuff that is in there. If you look at regular scientific discourse, evolution is not considered a partially formed (or 60% sure) theory. It is very close to fact. The fact that the religionists have an elaborate looking website to claim otherwise is frankly quite inconsequential.

If you can find me any credible, academic writing where these 'doubts' are discussed, I would actually consider it worthwhile reading it and trying to understand it. Reading elaborate propaganda to rebut it, would be a waste of time, and if you wish to continue to believe it, be my guest.

And no, I have not convinced myself that you are from the opposite camp. But is evident that you're from a camp that swallows ID propaganda, so yes, in that respect, you're in a different camp from me even if not the opposite.

Psychotropic - do you perhaps believe that who says something is more important than what is being said? If so, then I must excuse myself from the discussion.

As I have asserted time and again, you convince yourself wrongly that I am from the opposite camp! Why is that? If somebody has doubts about Darwin's theory is that someone automatically relegated to the creationism camp? That appears too simplistic - even to a novice in science (and religion) like me.

I, for one, always have believed and hopefully will in the future as well, that there are always two sides to a coin and will happily read Dawkins as well as not dismiss out of hand any inconvenient questions raised by people on the evolution theory as propounded by Darwin.

 

[thevortex]

Yes in typical cases it is the 'what' that is more important than the 'who' but when the 'who' in question are essentially religionists with an axe to grind and a propaganda objective, the 'who' becomes very relevant. These are not academic or scientific sources you are citing. And pardon me if I don't treat propaganda and academic writing in the same manner.

I am not a qualified scientist to scientifically rebut what the Discovery Institute wants to say, because it is easy to conjure up scientific sounding stuff in support of a claim, to fool the non-scientists.

But I do know that the discovery institute is a right-wing, conservative, Christian organisation with one single objective. In light of this, do excuse me for giving the 'who' a great deal of importance. These ID chappies are masters of propaganda, right up there with the Nazis and the Soviets, and it's unfortunate that so many non-scientists can be easily fooled by this kind of stuff.

I would be grateful if there were any biologists on these forums who can go through the darwin's predictions site and discredit the stuff that is in there. If you look at regular scientific discourse, evolution is not considered a partially formed (or 60% sure) theory. It is very close to fact. The fact that the religionists have an elaborate looking website to claim otherwise is frankly quite inconsequential.

If you can find me any credible, academic writing where these 'doubts' are discussed, I would actually consider it worthwhile reading it and trying to understand it. Reading elaborate propaganda to rebut it, would be a waste of time, and if you wish to continue to believe it, be my guest.

And no, I have not convinced myself that you are from the opposite camp. But is evident that you're from a camp that swallows ID propaganda, so yes, in that respect, you're in a different camp from me even if not the opposite.

There appears to be a confusion of sorts going on in your mind, psychotropic. On the one hand you say that you are a non-scientist who is not quite sure of the veracity of the information provided. On the other hand you actually ask for 'credible, academic writing' by scientists!!! How does that work?

So, now the evolution theory is quite close to fact? It is a theory, that is all it is. Not choosing to believe this theory completely does not automatically make anybody non-scientific or a proponent of intelligent design. Not in my mind at least.

People may ask these questions with other motivations in mind. That however should not stop one from considering the questions by themselves. I am sure as a lawyer you are quite familiar with this thought process.

Lastly I find it a bit odd, lets say for want of a better word, that you seem to imply (no, expressly refer) that I am 'swallowing Intelligent design propaganda'. If I do swallow that material, then I would equally gleefully swallow Dawkins and his ilk. There is no wrong at all in learning, reading and seeking, psychotropic.

For the nth time I am neither convinced with this side or the other. The sole reason I provided the information to you was because you appeared to be utterly and absolutely convinced by Darwin's theory. Hope this helps. And if it is all the same to you, we can agree to disagree on this.

I would also temper all this with a small anecdote. No less a personality than Stephen Hawkins has expressed his doubt about the Big Bang theory and mused about whether the church's momentary creation concept may not be true after all. Just for kicks.

 

[thevortex]

If at all it is of interest in this forum, I quite like the ring of the 'survival of the fittest' and the 'natural selection' concepts personally.

I would actually be happy if these were to be proven conclusively in light of evolution of life in this planet.

But then as one of my relations pointed out to me, if the strictest 'natural selection' concepts were in place, then humans today may all be wearing swastikas and intellectual greats (as opposed to perfect physical specimens) may not have had the say that they have till date.

 

[psychotropic]

how it works is like this. I am a non-scientist, so it will take me considerable effort to understand something that contains a lot of scientific terms. I would rather expend that kind of effort on a credible, academic work, than on propaganda. Does this make more sense now?

Re: evolution as fact. Yes, and this is the crucial point where we differ. I have read enough to know that evolution while a theory is pretty close to fact. Any mainstream literature that you read will also tell you the same. You give credence to stuff that is primarily ID propaganda, and therefore you think is is not. So we are destined to disagree.

re: thought process Absolutely, I would love to read examinations of these issues, but not by religionists trying to give credibility to their fiction, but by credible academics trying to conduct an academic exercise. Like I said, the effort that it will take me to get my head around something like that, I just cannot waste on some propaganda from the ID camp. I've read the less "technical" versions of it and it is laughable, and that doesn't inspire any desire in me to read the 'dressed up' version of it.

Once again, I accept that you are not convinced by either side. But that does not make it any less baffling that you treat the creationist story (for it is nothing but a story) and the theory of evolution as having roughly comparable weightage. I am sincerely hoping that reading Dawkins will to some extent negate the ill-effects of that the ID propaganda has evidently had on you.

This discussion is unlikely to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion, and we can continue on this circular trip for eterntiy. What say we call it even and get back to laughing at cable elevators?

There appears to be a confusion of sorts going on in your mind, psychotropic. On the one hand you say that you are a non-scientist who is not quite sure of the veracity of the information provided. On the other hand you actually ask for 'credible, academic writing' by scientists!!! How does that work?

So, now the evolution theory is quite close to fact? It is a theory, that is all it is. Not choosing to believe this theory completely does not automatically make anybody non-scientific or a proponent of intelligent design. Not in my mind at least.

People may ask these questions with other motivations in mind. That however should not stop one from considering the questions by themselves. I am sure as a lawyer you are quite familiar with this thought process.

Lastly I find it a bit odd, lets say for want of a better word, that you seem to imply (no, expressly refer) that I am 'swallowing Intelligent design propaganda'. If I do swallow that material, then I would equally gleefully swallow Dawkins and his ilk. There is no wrong at all in learning, reading and seeking, psychotropic.

For the nth time I am neither convinced with this side or the other. The sole reason I provided the information to you was because you appeared to be utterly and absolutely convinced by Darwin's theory. Hope this helps. And if it is all the same to you, we can agree to disagree on this.

I would also temper all this with a small anecdote. No less a personality than Stephen Hawkins has expressed his doubt about the Big Bang theory and mused about whether the church's momentary creation concept may not be true after all. Just for kicks.

 

[thevortex]

how it works is like this. I am a non-scientist, so it will take me considerable effort to understand something that contains a lot of scientific terms. I would rather expend that kind of effort on a credible, academic work, than on propaganda. Does this make more sense now?

Re: evolution as fact. Yes, and this is the crucial point where we differ. I have read enough to know that evolution while a theory is pretty close to fact. Any mainstream literature that you read will also tell you the same. You give credence to stuff that is primarily ID propaganda, and therefore you think is is not. So we are destined to disagree.

re: thought process Absolutely, I would love to read examinations of these issues, but not by religionists trying to give credibility to their fiction, but by credible academics trying to conduct an academic exercise. Like I said, the effort that it will take me to get my head around something like that, I just cannot waste on some propaganda from the ID camp. I've read the less "technical" versions of it and it is laughable, and that doesn't inspire any desire in me to read the 'dressed up' version of it.

Once again, I accept that you are not convinced by either side. But that does not make it any less baffling that you treat the creationist story (for it is nothing but a story) and the theory of evolution as having roughly comparable weightage. I am sincerely hoping that reading Dawkins will to some extent negate the ill-effects of that the ID propaganda has evidently had on you.

This discussion is unlikely to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion, and we can continue on this circular trip for eterntiy. What say we call it even and get back to laughing at cable elevators?

About agreeing to disagree - that is for sure. Not a problem.

However I do believe you are doing a gross disservice to the questions being put forth in these links. Also I believe you are being unjust to eminently qualified scientists who are scathing in their rebuttal of the evolution theory as espoused by Darwin (in dissentfromdarwin). Please note that I keep repeating 'evolution theory as per Darwin'. So much so that there are actually Darwinians - a camp solely believing in Charles Darwin and his tenets.

If scientific material is all you look for, then a click on the Links section of the dissentfromdarwin site might be of help.

About the other camp's arguments being merely stories, yes there are stories. And then there are facts. Remember my mention of our honourable epics in this context. I would only recommend that you not dismiss whatever the other camp says as hogwash without even a second glance.

Whether reading Dawkins radically changes my perspective I will share when I am done reading. I again want to reinforce something which I fail to see why you are not giving credence to. I am not interested in finding out which theory is more plausible. I am interested in finding out which one is fact or truth. As of now, neither side has much to speak of as fact. And as mentioned I would gladly read material from either side.

As a devil's advocate I believe I would have brought out many points from Darwin's side and a lot of incongruities from the intelligent design side if you were to say that intelligent design is better than science!. Let my persistent arguments about evolution not convince you that I am swayed by the other side. This discussion is purely contextual from my side.

I certainly enjoyed this discussion and hope to get back to this at a later date when I have read some Dawkins. Psycho do you think Ramachandran's books can be gotten at places like Landmark in Chennai?

 

[psychotropic]

I am sure it can. Or you can always borrow my copy when you come home to listen to the Ushers.

About your other points, our fundamental disagreements remain the same, so no point going over them again

Psycho do you think Ramachandran's books can be gotten at places like Landmark in Chennai?

 

[thevortex]

I am sure it can. Or you can always borrow my copy when you come home to listen to the Ushers.

About your other points, our fundamental disagreements remain the same, so no point going over them again

Thanks a bunch.

I dont think for all our circular discussion we disagree too much, basically. I just happen to not commit to any school of thought completely whereas you have committed to Darwin's theory in terms of evolution.

Moreover I love stories

 

[srramanujam]

Vortex,

A good sequencing would be Brief History of nearly everything, selfish gene and Greatest show on earth.

Brief history is an unbiassed documentation of interesting facts, and is a great joy to read, with the touch of british humour (from an america writer).

Selfish gene is more logical and less argumentative.

Dawkins' later writings have a tone of aggressive logic (that i agree with though). God delusion certainly falls in that category. So you may want to reserve these for later.

I am convinced that you would atleast put evolution through natural selection above the creatioist theory, if not accept evolution as no more a hypothesis.

Lastly, scientific theories are never proven. Only laws are proven. Theories only explain all available observations and make predictions. Therefore there is still a gap in semantics that we have to work with.

I read the darwinrepdictions site without any prejudice. Will come back to you with some comments.

 

[srramanujam]

Vortex and Psycho,

Do you think Usher BE 718 can work with Lyrita (15 watters?)

 

[psychotropic]

no clue really, but the 87 dB sensitivity doesn't inspire confidence, for a 15W amp. How big would the room be?

Vortex and Psycho,

Do you think Usher BE 718 can work with Lyrita (15 watters?)