Theistic Evolution

Randman:Just ignore Subbie; there is nothing anyone can do for a person who believes ToE was not developed to "evidence" that there is no God.She refuses to acknowledge the fact that all atheists rabidly support ToE and what that logically means.Fundamentalism has no bounds; especially in Darwinism.Ray

That some people have come to this conclusion says nothing about what the ToE itself actually says. Plenty of christians have stated that the bible provides support for racism, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. That don't make it so. Moreover, until you provide context for what you claim Wilson said, I don't know if he thinks that the conclusion follows logically from the evidence, or if that's simply a personal conclusion he came to for purposes of his own religious beliefs. If he thinks the conclusion follows logically, then I would disagree with him. As I stated above, all the ToE says is that it could have happened without divine guidance. That's no proof at all that it actually did happen without divine guidance. The typical response when one has nothing of substance to say. He, actually, but don't let the facts get in your way, you haven't yet. I didn't so much "refuse to acknowledge" anything, as I simply stated I didn't know. Can you back your claim up with evidence?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Please cite the seminal, peer-reviewed papers establishing the basic claims of ToE.Also, there was a whole thread on Wilson and the Rose interview on PBS. Guess you missed it.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin, Chas, pub. November, 1859, initial price 15 shillings.In case you are not familiar with it, let me give you a summary.Organisms struggle for survival. More are created than can survive in a given environment. Some of those are better adapated to the environment than others, so they tend to live longer and produce more offspring. The organisms that are better adapted to survive will tend to pass on to their offspring those traits that better suit them to increased survivability. Over time, those traits that make organisms better suited to survivability will become more prevalant.Over long periods of time, conditions of survival will change. This will result in a change in organisms as the traits better suited to survivability change. As these changes become more pronounced, new species will emerge.Now, what you got?Edited by subbie, : Added precis.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

LOL. So you think that was peer-reviewed?I suppose Behe's book counts then, right?

I think it has been peer reviewed hundreds of times, thousands of times, tens of thousands of times.I see you didn't provide anything to back up your claims.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Hi RandmanHere is a quote from the interview with Antony Flew when he converted from Atheism to Theism.FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that
Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole
argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature
the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me
that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and
enormously powerful argument to design.There are plenty of scientists such as Dawkins that use their credentials as scientists to give their non-scientific pronouncements scientific credence. Evolution is a theory of how and not why. Using evolution to explain first cause or abiogenesis is not science and is just as much a matter of faith as is Christianity.Edited by GDR, : The difference between their and there.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Then it should be easy for you to cite the seminal papers in a peer-reviewed journal that substantiate and present the basic claims of ToE.Please do.Btw, there was a thread on this awhile back, and the general concensus was that acceptance of ToE occurred without and prior to the peer-reviewed process as we know it today. In other words, you are making a claim that even the evos here largely admit is not the case.But hey, go ahead......show us the papers.

The seminal work on the ToE is Origin. I see no particular point in finding more to support my claim unless and until you can show me where in Origin there is any claim that the ToE disproves god, or you show me some other scientific work, as opposed to some kind of social commentary, that makes the claim. In any event, I'm certainly not going to look for more until you give me something So far you've produced absolutely squat to back up your bogus contention.As far as whether the peer review process was the same in 1859 as it is today, that's probably true, but irrelevant. The bulk of the work that Darwin did in Origins has been tested and challegend many, many times. Not only has it survived these challenges, but subsequent discoveries that could never have been anticipated 150 years ago have given it greater weight.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That's not a peer-reviewed publication. I ask again: are you ready then to accept Behe's book as a peer-reviewed publication since plenty of his peers have read it as well?Or are there different standards for evos and IDers?

Origin was not peer reviewed in the way that the peer review process works today because that process was not in place 150 years ago, so the comparison to Behe is meaningless. To discount Origin because it didn't comply with a procedure that wasn't even in place at the time is reaching a new low, even for a creo. Do you have anything of substance to say against it that's relevent to the point, or are you trying to advance your position on a meaningless criticism?I really don't see what your hang up is on Behe's book since it doesn't say that ToE excludes god anyway, so it's rather irrelevent to the point at issue. Moreover, the main point in Behe's book has been successfully refuted to the point that even Behe has backed away from it.If you can't find anything of substance to say, I see little reason to continue this discussion. If you want to claim victory because you haven't said anything, I guess you can go ahead and do that.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

So you admit that there has been no peer-reviewed process to validate the claims of ToE?Thanks.Maybe this is why so many false claims have been accepted by evo scientists over the years, claims such as:Microevolution equals macroevolution.The fossil record shows evolution.the Biogenetic Law.Natural selection is a realistic agent of macroevolution.Neanderthals were a missing link between men and apes or the mythical hominid common ancesor.etc, etc,...

I admitted nothing of the sort, and if that's typical of the moronic sophistry that you think passes for debate, I'm wasting my time.You apparetnly have nothing to back up your claim, so I'll leave you to your playpen.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You cannot show any peer-reviewed papers to validate the basic claims of ToE, and yet you insist otherwise.All I am asking is that you back up your claims. You presented Darwin and now admit this was not peer-reviewed. Are you trying to claim it was peer-reviewed prior to publication or what?Why not just admit that there are no real peer-reviewed papers to establish and validate the basic claims of ToE. ToE is an assumption within papers, but the assumption itself has not been subject to peer-review.

Please explain why 150+ years of validation does not equate to peer review.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat