Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Books that misinform
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (45578)
07-10-2003 1:29 AM


I recently had a private email discussion with Mike Riddle, author of the book The Origin of Life. Because his argument was directed to me personally I will not repeat it here. But some of his argument was taken directly from his book. So I thought I might get some comment.
His argument that there can’t be an increase in information in biological systems.
I counted with.
By this I assume you mean genetic information can't increase by natural process. Certainly evolution requires this. I wonder if there are any solid examples of this in nature? The most striking example that comes to mind is that of polyploidy. Some plants (many) are known to double (or more) their genetic makeup through polyploidy (1). This means one organism has twice the genetic information of its progenitors. You can observe this phenomenon empirically.
Unfortunately he failed to read the paper, which I specifically chose because it is online and easy to access. He maintained that this wasn’t new information!
But my greatest concern is that he claims his book contains about 40 pages on thermodynamics. He has no formal training in thermodynamics and doesn’t seem to understand it at all.
I fear to think what would be in his book origin of life equipping course. Designed to misinform 9th grade school through to adult.
I left the discussion feeling that YEC has a problem with thermodynamics as large as its problem with ToE.
Any comments.
1. The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of
polyploids.
Soltis PS, Soltis DE.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 20; 97(13): 7051-7057.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-10-2003 1:43 AM Autocatalysis has not replied

  
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 23 (45579)
07-10-2003 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Autocatalysis
07-10-2003 1:29 AM


Should provide a link!
http://riddle.nwcreation.net

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-10-2003 1:29 AM Autocatalysis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 5:51 AM Autocatalysis has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 3 of 23 (45596)
07-10-2003 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Autocatalysis
07-10-2003 1:43 AM


I see that Mike has a degree in Mathematics and a graduate degree in education. This seems to be all that creationists require in order to be an expert in every science known to man.
I like H.H. Rowley's approach in his book, From Joseph to Joshua He states:
As I am not an archaeologist, I am not qualified to express an opinion on these questions.
Creationists would do well to heed his words.
Why do creationists always take the word of an unqualified creationist against the word of specialists in the fields of science and archaeology?
If I wanted to find out the age of the earth would I would read articles by reputable geologists or the amateur research of a mathematician? Of course I would go with the geologists, but a creationist will cite anyone at all that agrees with their fantasy.
I had a look at Riddle's website, and took in the 'powerpoint' slideshow. I cannot speak for the education system in the USA, but I can say for certain that Riddle's material would not be found within a hundred miles of a Science Department in any Scottish school.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-10-2003 1:43 AM Autocatalysis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:05 AM Brian has replied
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-10-2003 11:03 PM Brian has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 4 of 23 (45612)
07-10-2003 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
07-10-2003 5:51 AM


'Why do creationists always take the word of an unqualified creationist against the word of specialists in the fields of science and archaeology?'
well its quite simple , every man has assumptions and an opinion,creation arguments have not changed , however why should we believe the quite clearly deeply believed in 'evolution ',there is evidence against evolution , because evo's dont even accept that there is evidence speaks volumes.
'we are the clever rationalists you are the wrongful irrational child like thinkers' untill this arrogance disappears and you admitt this do not expect any believers from our side!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 5:51 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:33 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 7 by MrHambre, posted 07-10-2003 10:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 23 (45615)
07-10-2003 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 10:05 AM


HI Mike,
The point I was making is that to speak with authority on a subject you should at least be familiar with the material.
I am not just speaking about evolution, I am talking about almost every academic area there is.
If I wanted to know about the dating of say the destruction layers at Jericho, should I ask a nurse or an archaeologist?
I am sure you will says the nurse if that nurse is a creationist!
Be honest with yourself, if you need expert advice on anything surely you consult someone qualified to give a reasonable answer.
It is ok to have assumptions and opinions, but you at least have to be able to support these with plausible evidence and examples. I would certainly take the word of archaeologist and Bible maximalist Bill Dever (and I am certainly not Dever's biggest fan)over the word of an ex-nurse come 'archaeologist' any day of the week.
Looking at Riddle's website I would certainly consult a qualified scientist rather than a maths teacher. I think most reasonable people would, but what happens when the maths teacher reveals that he is a God fearing dyed in the wool creationist? Well suddenly he is a scientific expert in every field of science known to man, not to mention the extra dollars that makes out of desparate believers.
The answer's are all out there Mike, take of the Jesus glasses and enjoy the awe and wonder of our world.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:05 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-10-2003 10:36 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:42 AM Brian has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 23 (45617)
07-10-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
07-10-2003 10:33 AM


Here... you might enjoy this.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:33 AM Brian has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 23 (45618)
07-10-2003 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 10:05 AM


The Creationist Shell Game
The typical creationist tactic is 'When the subject is theory, argue the evidence. When the subject is evidence, argue the theory." Note that Mike says
quote:
there is evidence against evolution , because evo's dont even accept that there is evidence speaks volumes.
When the subject is evidence, however, notice how his tone changes:
quote:
well its quite simple , every man has assumptions and an opinion
So it's a matter of opinion when there's evidence, but a matter of fact when there's a philosophical difference. Mike must have learned this from Phillip Johnson, the acknowledged master of creationist rhetorical ruses. Johnson has argued this way since he wrote 'Darwin on Trial,' probably the most dishonest creationist tome ever published.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:05 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 23 (45619)
07-10-2003 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
07-10-2003 10:33 AM


'The answer's are all out there Mike, take of the Jesus glasses '
why should i ,if the glasses make me see clearly and they do make me see clearly Brian.
'I am sure you will says the nurse if that nurse is a creationist!'
actually on this sight was a person who knew a lot about archeology and i completely admitted i was wrong because of his knowledge.i too seek the truth Brian , and i see clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:33 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:54 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 23 (45625)
07-10-2003 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 10:42 AM


actually on this sight was a person who knew a lot about archeology and i completely admitted i was wrong because of his knowledge.
Yes I remember the conversation well.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:42 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:17 AM Brian has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 23 (45630)
07-10-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
07-10-2003 10:54 AM


'Yes I remember the conversation well.'
i cant remember , but was this person you by any chance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:54 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 9:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 23 (45716)
07-10-2003 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 11:17 AM


Yes Mike, it was I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:17 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 23 (45720)
07-10-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
07-10-2003 5:51 AM


quote:
Why do creationists always take the word of an unqualified creationist against the word of specialists in the fields of science and archaeology?
It's because to a Creationist, people "on your team" are, by definition, "the good guys" and anyone who disagrees with the facts as they have decided they are are, by definition, "the bad guys".
It's an "us" vs. "them" thing, really. It has a lot to do with them wanting to feel right rather than think well, because thinking well is often difficult and makes one feel uncomfortable and unsure about what one knows.
A woman I was college roomates with and used to be very close friends with converted to Mormonism during what was a very difficult time emotionally for her. Anyway, years later we were corresponding through e-mails and she forwarded me some e-mail warning about underarm deoderant causing breast cancer in women. She had gotten this e-mail from some church friends of hers. I figured it was spam, but I did some research anyway and my idea that the claims were unfounded was correct.
Thinking she would be relieved that she didn't have to worry about using deoderant, I sent her a reply with links to the information I had found from the American Cancer Society, Quackwatch, etc.
Well, she actually became very angry at me! She said that the reason she sends such e-mails is because she cares about me and that she would rather I just not reply if I didn't have anything nice to say.
She didn't think that it was "nice", apparently, to let her know that someone was feeding her bad information.
I think, in retrospect, that she felt threatened because she felt that by my telling her that I thought that something that was believed by her and her church friends was unfounded and bogus.
She had extended her religious belief to believing whatever people connected to the church told her. To her, all church people are basically beyond reproach and never wrong. At the very least, they are to be trusted at a much deeper level than anyone outside the group. She was determined to believe what her group believed, and I was not being "nice" by presenting her with contradictory information.
Most people don't like it when you point out errors in their facts or logic, even when it's concering their own health, even if it's a good friend.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 5:51 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-11-2003 12:32 AM nator has not replied
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 07-11-2003 9:44 AM nator has not replied
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 07-11-2003 3:23 PM nator has replied

  
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 23 (45723)
07-11-2003 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
07-10-2003 11:03 PM


I think you have hit, in part, on what really concerns me about creationist education. From the people I have met I think that you can put YEC into a number of groups. One such group, those like your friend who doesn’t ever attempt a logical approach to their beliefs. These people are happy believing the bible literally and don’t participate in any discussion about it. The people that I know in this category often respond to my concerns with if that’s what it says in the bible. Not the if, they’re not interested in doing all that much reading of it. But there is another YEC type out there. This is the person that goes around collecting pieces of information that they claim disproves evolution. This information is then disseminated in a pseudo-scientific format. And heres the difference, although my acquaintance holds belief in the truth of the bible, she doesn’t think its science. The result is a kind of compromise where she doesn’t think about the conflict between the two. A difficult thing for myselfI thought!.
This kind of self-delusion is actually quite common. We even know that the left hemisphere of the brain is mostly responsible for it. I encourage the reader to spend some time thinking about the unsupported beliefs you hold. I am not talking about anything religious. I have mentioned in another thread that I know a engineer who actually believes there isn’t enough food in the world to feed the starving people! It wouldn’t take much of a challenge for him to see the truth, but he sleeps well this way. Do you think you’re in the top 50% of people in terms of intelligence? 98% of people do! Ever attribute any anthropomorphic traits to your pet. I catch myself sometimes, a question is asked, my mind drags up an answer and I think how on earth did I come to believe that. Some of it is no doubt well supported. Most of what I learnt in high school now sadly falls in this category. For example what is the speed of light? well an answer quickly comes to mind 3 *10to8th m/s, but I can’t quite remember the experimental method to determine it. Something to do with spinning disks and slots and an adjacent building! And I sure can’t tell you where I read it was that number. We all hold unsupported beliefs, some people even do it on purpose.
The reason I contacted Mike Riddle was to get my head around a person who deliberately goes out spreading misinformation. He may have convinced himself its not misinformation, we will never know. What ever makes him sleep well at night? When someone says that you can’t believe in god and evolution so they chose godwell I think you see my point by now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-10-2003 11:03 PM nator has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 23 (45744)
07-11-2003 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
07-10-2003 11:03 PM


quote:
It has a lot to do with them wanting to feel right rather than think well, because thinking well is often difficult and makes one feel uncomfortable and unsure about what one knows.
You make an excellent point. Nothing has to be true simply because of the strength with which we believe it.
quote:
anyone who disagrees with the facts as they have decided they are are, by definition, "the bad guys".
I'm also interested in the selective (no pun intended) way creationists use the testimony of scientists. Most times, as you point out, the siege mentality makes the creationists regard the words of a scientist as the hostile mockery of the proud atheist, and so forth. However, it seems that the same scientist can suddenly assume a glow of authority when something he or she said can be used to prove the creationist's point. It's strange that the mouth that spouted nothing but godless folly a minute ago is suddenly a font of wisdom.
How many times have creationists quoted Gould's comment about stasis in the fossil record being the 'trade secret of paleontologists'? Never mind that the man went literally out of his way to keep creationism out of science curricula. Similarly, authorities like Manfred Eigen and Colin Patterson were obliged to defend themselves when they found their words used to support creationist ideology.
------------------
Quien busca, halla

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-10-2003 11:03 PM nator has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 23 (45759)
07-11-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
07-10-2003 11:03 PM


HI Schrafinator
It's because to a Creationist, people "on your team" are, by definition, "the good guys" and anyone who disagrees with the facts as they have decided they are are, by definition, "the bad guys".
Thank goodness everyone is not like this, we would still be living in the Dark Ages if this were the case.
It's an "us" vs. "them" thing, really. It has a lot to do with them wanting to feel right rather than think well, because thinking well is often difficult and makes one feel uncomfortable and unsure about what one knows.
I suppose we all have an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ mentality, and I know it can be difficult to admit that someone’s argument can cast serious doubts on your own beliefs, but surely if a person was interested in the truth (with or without a capital ‘T’) then they should at least consider their opponents arguments and either accept them or refute them with satisfactory counter arguments. I know that this isn’t what most creationists do, but maybe they should at least give it a try.
Regarding the difficulty of thinking, I have noticed how anti-intellectual most Christians are. The Christians that I have had discussions with, and there are many, all seem to detest knowledge. I have lost count of the number of Christians who have said to me you may have a lot of ‘head’ knowledge, but that wont save you.’ They seem to have his deep-rooted belief that there is this ‘other world’ where only the intellectually bankrupt will be welcome.
A woman I was college roomates with . did some research anyway and my idea that the claims were unfounded was correct.
Well, she actually became very angry at me! She said that the reason she sends such e-mails is because she cares about me and that she would rather I just not reply if I didn't have anything nice to say.
She didn't think that it was "nice", apparently, to let her know that someone was feeding her bad information.
And she couldn’t even work out that you were informing her because you care, it does sound fairly typical.
It really appears to me that when people go through one of these ‘conversional experiences’ something happens to them psychologically.
Because of the nature of my studies, and occupation, I have come into contact with numerous people, from various faiths, who have underwent a conversional experience of a sort and I am no longer surprised at their attitude and manner. Some people, who I have known for a long time, have indeed had their lives altered dramatically by ‘finding’ Jesus. I was brought up in a very rough area of Scotland, I have had a few friends that have been murdered, killed in fights, and I myself have been stabbed three times. I personally never got addicted to drugs, but a lot of my fiends did, and there is one in particular who everyone thought would be dead by the time he was 20. However, this guy went through a ‘rebirth in Jesus’ type experience and he stopped taking drugs just like that!
Obviously I was very happy that his life had been saved, however, he is a raving lunatic now, a totally bigoted, homophobic, paranoid guy who I find difficult to even have a conversation with. He clearly doesn’t like me because I continually point out errors when he preaches to some of our other friends, he becomes angry and aggressive, which is obviously just playing into my hands. I keep telling him that people will not take him seriously if he rants and raves all the time and that people will have more time for him if he puts forward his beliefs in a more reasonable manner. So far he hasn’t managed to do this, and this makes me wonder, what is the most damaging, drugs or a ‘born again’ experience.
He strikes me as being very similar to your friend, what they have been told and what they belief is true and that’s that!
I haven’t studied Mormonism that much, I lost interest when I realised that Joseph Smith was imply having a laugh. I mean the word ‘moron’ is too prevalent in Mormonism, a follower is only one letter away from a moron, they have an angel who is also only one letter away from a moron. Also what is Kolob all about, did Smith realise if you spell this backwards then the truth about his belief becomes clear?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 07-10-2003 11:03 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 07-11-2003 11:33 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 07-11-2003 11:56 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024