Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science journalist trashing the Darwin industry? … I have a twin somewhere?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is Susan Mazur writing a book that exposes the Darwin industry instead of protecting it?

Her e-book title is “Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry”
Sunday, 6 July 2008, 12:32 pm | Article: Suzan Mazur

—–

<oreword

Introduction

Chronology

Evolution Tribes

1 The Altenberg 16

2 Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

3 Jerry Fodor and Stan Salthe Open the Evo Box

4 Theory of Form to Center Stage

5 The Two Stus

[ and further … ]

Susan, you mean, no more of the “dancing with the biologists” on Galapagos rubbish (and, person who wrote that silliness, you know who you are … ) A real accounting at last?

By the way, Susan, the intro to a book is the “Foreword”, not “Forward”. Easy to correct.

I will read and report shortly. Story continues here.

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Meditation really can change the brain

My experiences point to truth but yours are classic examples of brain rot? (Charlie Brown’s sister Lucy’s theory of psychiatry, but not a cartoon)

Jeff Schwartz lectures in Ireland on changing the troubled brain by changing the mind

Neuroscience: First detailed map of the Grand Central Station of the brain

Can languages be treated as if words were genes?

The Mindful Hack is news and views on the science of our brains. It supports the book The Spiritual Brain.

Comments
jerry, Enjoy your trip! Where in Europe? I'm going to Italy to see Otzi the Ice Man in October. Best wishes, DanielDaniel King
July 22, 2008
July
07
Jul
22
22
2008
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Daniel King, I am off for two weeks to Europe so I cannot answer your request in detail. Save for the future. All have easy answers though a couple require reading of Denton and the Design of Life to get the details.jerry
July 22, 2008
July
07
Jul
22
22
2008
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
jerry, Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post. However, I'm sorry to say that I'm still unclear about some points. Please don't feel obliged to adress my questions, which may be too stupid for you to bother with. I list them because of my puzzlement. "However, these naturalistic process cannot explain where the basic fruit fly came from, where birds came from, where mammals came from." Evolutionists believe that birds and mammals came (descended) from reptiles. Do you doubt that? "Complete speculation - macro evolution or the origin of new complex functional systems within animals." Would you provide a definition and an example of a new complex functional system? "If the mechanism was gradualism then such a process would leave a forensic trail indicating that the process had happened." What would be the characteristics of such a forensic trail? How would one recognize a forensic trail in evolution? Would it be possible for you to give an example? "Yes there are fossils that are examples of this progression but these are not transitions per se and are just additional examples of new species appearing which may be similar to other species that came before it." I'm really confused here. Evolutionists cite a series of fossil animals that they believe bridge the gap between a land-dwelling mammal and whales. Are you saying that this series tells us nothing about the evolution of whales? "The arrival of a new species that established a new order or class has never been attributed to gradualism." Are you saying that such species never existed, or that they were specially created? Here is an attempt by me to clarify one feature of your theory: If gradualism explains, as you said, most of the variety of life on the planet, then gradualism explains quite a bit. And if this is, in your terminology, microevolution, then your use of that term is very different from its use by Creationists. Your term, microevolution = most of what evolutionary scientists ascribe to their grand theory. Do you agree?Daniel King
July 21, 2008
July
07
Jul
21
21
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Daniel King, Fact - Evolution happened both the micro kind and the macro kind. Fact - Darwinian processes of natural selection along with basic genetics and some mutations accounts for some of micro evolution. Speculation - Darwinian processes of natural selection along with basic genetics and some mutations and some other processes accounts for the rest of micro evolution. There is no reason not to think that basic naturalistic processes can account for most of the variety in the biological world. The more we examine it the more most of life are just variants of other forms existing nearby. For example, wolves and dogs can mate so are really variants of each other; tigers and lions can mate so are really variants of each other; many birds are almost identical except for mating habits so are really variants of each other; fruit flies in different islands are also very close to each other so are really variants of each other. It is not unlikely that these varieties were the result of naturalistic processes. Future work on genome sequences will indicate the differences. However, these naturalistic process cannot explain where the basic fruit fly came from, where birds came from, where mammals came from. Complete speculation - macro evolution or the origin of new complex functional systems within animals. The mechanism for the origination of organisms at the class or order level is unknown. It is a mystery. So to ask when an intelligent design event took place has no meaning because there is no information on what, when and how anything took place. As I said it is a mystery. If the mechanism was gradualism then such a process would leave a forensic trail indicating that the process had happened. The complete lack of such evidence is the knock against gradualism. Yes there is a progression over time to new life forms and increased complexity within the life forms but there is no evidence of any gradual transitions taking place. Yes there are fossils that are examples of this progression but these are not transitions per se and are just additional examples of new species appearing which may be similar to other species that came before it. The whale has some highly developed complex systems that are essential for its survival in its environment. There are no transitions that show a progression of these systems to its current form. We may eventually find some but as of now there are none. Dave ascribes to front loading. I am skeptical of it but it may be possible. As I said the mechanism for the origin of new orders and classes is a complete mystery but with gradualism currently ruled out. Actually new species that are classified at the sub family level may be the result of gradualism but this is trivial in the whole evolutionary debate. The arrival of a new species that established a new order or class has never been attributed to gradualism. They just appear and the circumstances for their origin is unknown. I am being redundant and not very eloquent but I hope you understand my position. If you or anyone has evidence to the contrary, we are eager to hear it.jerry
July 21, 2008
July
07
Jul
21
21
2008
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Thanks, Dave, although I hope jerry will follow through on his argument. I have found this discussion enlightening. Yes, there seem to be several points of view among the participants here about the mechanism of design creation. Which is a good thing!Daniel King
July 21, 2008
July
07
Jul
21
21
2008
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Daniel I don't have a copy of Edge with me but I think Behe placed it anywhere between classes and genera. There are a fair (and growing) number of front loading proponents here which essentially means that all or most of the complexity needed to go from microbes to mankind was extant in the first life on the planet and has unfolded more or less according to a planned sequence with no further intervention needed.DaveScot
July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
jerry, Thank you for your patience. You wrote: "Gradualism does work but in minor things in terms of evolution. It explains most of the variety on the planet but this again is micro evolution and not the origin of any major biological systems." So, gradualism explains most of the variety on the planet. Interesting... Let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that gradualism doesn't explain the "origin of any major biological systems." To help me see your position more clearly (which is what I've been trying to do all along here), please list the points in the history of evolution where an intelligent designer must be invoked to provide a satisfactory explanation of the discontinuities you see. Did the designer act at the origination of phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, or species? Or is it at some other levels of evolution that "new systems," as you call them, had to be created de novo. I read Behe's Edge when it first came out, and as I recall, he had a diagram showing where he thinks the edge exists. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy at hand and I don't remember where he drew the edge. Do you agree with his placement of the edge?Daniel King
July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Daniel King, You do not understand the debate. That is why I suggest you read Behe's Edge of Evolution. No one is questioning minor changes in organisms which can be brought about by the reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction and recombination. Major changes in species is what the debate is all about and Behe provides evidence that it may be beyond the power of reproduction and recombination to achieve. There are several systems within all multi-celled organisms and there is no evidence that even one let alone all of them arose by natural processes. So providing different mollusk shells or a growing horse are not examples of new systems and as such are things that are possible without the introduction of new systems and within the capabilities of micro evolution. The examples I referred to are not transitions but just examples of various species with some similar characteristics. There is no evidence that any of them arose through a gradual process or that one is an ancestor of the other. They could have been part of a gradual transition process but there is no evidence to support a gradual transition other than wishful thinking. You are starting with a world view or a belief that such a process was how things changed not from a perspective that here we have some facts and what best explains them. The mechanism for change is a mystery but the evidence available eliminates gradualism as a serious solution. The only reason it is held is because this is what Darwin proposed and to contradict Darwin on this means to take the last major part of what he proposed and eliminate it. Without gradualism Darwin becomes just another failed scientist. Darwin himself admitted that without any good examples his theory was worthless and that at the writing of the OOS there were no good examples. He believed it was just a matter of time before someone found all the transitions but 150 years later and none have appeared except for the micro evolution examples and these are not even close to what he was expecting. Gradualism does work but in minor things in terms of evolution. It explains most of the variety on the planet but this again is micro evolution and not the origin of any major biological systems. Once the systems arise, then Darwin's ideas explain variety but nothing else. Darwin's ideas explain the various mollusk shells but not the origin of the mollusk. For that you would need a very different suite of transitions.jerry
July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
jerry wrote: "This is getting to be a joke." Sorry, I thought you were serious. "You do not understand basic logic nor probability." I apologize for my intellectual limitations. I appreciate all the help you care to give. "Your request to constantly provide examples is a ridiculous one." I repeatedly asked you to provide one example. "I say there are no transitions, so disprove me." How is that possible if you are the one and only judge of what is a transition? Will you simply say that anything I propose is "trivial" and an example of "microevolution," as you did with mollusc shells and horse evolution in your reply to M.Baldwin? "I can tell you what are the crown jewels of gradualism and that is the forrest animal to whale transition and the head bones of a reptile to the head bones of a mammal." Thanks for citing these examples. Please critique them. (Tell me what's wrong with them.)Daniel King
July 20, 2008
July
07
Jul
20
20
2008
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Jerry, I'll buy that.StephenB
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
StephenB, I think we should bury the discussion.jerry
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
in other words we ARE moral creatures that do CHOOSE what we think SHOULD BE done. SO is all religion is false- that is objectivly- then where do we look to find the compass whereby our actions are guided? Obviously science, that is darwinism, would be the ultimate truth of what we should strive towards and use to enact order and direction in our lives. We dont have to live as Darwinians but why would we choose to go against the natural order of nature? The only thing then that we have to appeal to outside of darwinism to guide us is our own "feelings" about things. I dont know about you all but I would say just judging by what I know about the history of man- that man is not capable alone of guideing himself morally and ethically without some other transcendent "being" (not necessarily person but general spiritual ideal) to bring inspiration. This to me s the reality of what we are dealing with.Frost122585
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
You know on the Darwinism/ Nazism thing- Ok this is what it is about... PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IF there is no transcendent purpose in life- no plan- no objective significance outside of our own personal desires- and MAN is therefore the measure of all things- then that is the very foundation of moral relativism. Darwinism sets up moral relativism because Darwinism claims to be A SCIENCE not a religion- and in fact it actually contradicts most religious views leaving people with nothing more than science (and maybe still philosophy) as the one and only truth. Darwinism says that "THE BAD" is destroyed and or prevented from reproducing while "THE GOOD" is essentially all that is passed on. So the next logical question is "why should we want or allow the bad to be passed on?" If man is the measure of all things then we decide what is good and bad and then it is in our nature to decide which is which and what "should be allowed to be passed on." Nazism is largely based on the perceptions of natural superiority of one era in time- therefore, obviously, Nazism seemed actually the moral and right thing to do to those people at that time who fallowed the unholy dogmatism of a Darwinian universe. These my friends are the sad, sad facts. So Darwinism when accepted as fact and sole truth about origins is logically the sufficient and even to a certain degree necessary precept of a Nazi type world movement. I mean maybe you would not have the killing in the future - but you would have the limits of reproduction and say gene therapy to produce the “most fit” human beings- That is, whatever they are supposed to be…Frost122585
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Daniel King, LOL. Denton's argument makes perfect sense. You just didn't understand his point. You need to think about it a little more.Jehu
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
-----Jerry: "I suggest you read more about evolution and the mutation process that specifically deals with deletions and additions and the error correction systems that are involved to prevent such changes or to correct them once they are made. Maybe some of the error correcting systems are sarcastic." Thanks, but I have already been there. I am well aware of the claims and limits of the modern evolutionary synthesis. For me, sarcasm is a last resort rather than an opening gambit. I am beginning to think that I should have just left the whole thing alone. While arguing furiously against me and others, Dave insisted that Darwinistic science does not lead to Nazism. He was especially concerned that such talk hurts the ID movement. On the other hand, he was aware of the potential for being misunderstood. That is why went out of his way to clarify the point that he does not want to defend Darwinism. As he put it, “I come to bury Darwin not to praise him.” Yet, you wrote, “I am very different from Dave Scot on a recent comment he made. I do not want to BUY Darwin, I want to demote him.” At first, I thought that had you misread him and attributed to him the word, “buy,” and assumed that he was buying into Darwinism. Under those circumstances, I thought it was unfair to make that implication and distinguish yourself from him on those terms. Then it occurred to me that you may have made a typo and wrote “buy” when you meant to write “bury.” That would indicate very opposite-----that you were not as critical of Darwin as he, meaning that Dave wanted to bury him and you merely wanted to demote him. I thought that surely that you would explain it one way or the other, since only you know what you meant. In any case, I wish I hadn’t gone there because if it wasn’t important to Dave, then maybe it shouldn’t be important to me. One thing sure, it was more trouble than it was worth.StephenB
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
StephenB, you said "You tell me. You wrote, “I am very different from Dave Scot on a recent comment he made. I do not want to buy Darwin, I want to demote him.” I suggest you read more about evolution and the mutation process that specifically deals with deletions and additions and the error correction systems that are involved to prevent such changes or to correct them once they are made. Maybe some of the error correcting systems are sarcastic. But just think how the world would be different today if someone had decided to buy Darwin and was successful. That would have been a mutation that was definitely beneficial. It would have been a lot easier than trying to bury him again 130 years he was originally buried.jerry
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Daniel King, This is getting to be a joke. You do not understand basic logic nor probability. If the fossil record contains both current and extinct fossils and there has been a sampling of all ages and most known geographical areas and this sampling has been extremely numerous and it finds nearly all of the one kind and the objective of the sampling is to actually find the other kind then the most likely conclusion is that it will have found most of the other kind too. An organism when it is fossilized does not know is going to part of an extinct species so all fossil are essentially the same and not just part of the living group. Till just before the fossilization they were both part of the living group. They didn't become the other group till their entire species got wiped out. A fossil is a fossil. There is no reason to distinguish them. There is also no reason to not think that living fossils could not be part of transitions either. Sampling at the beginning is a random process as best as one can do it but after awhile it starts to become an exhaustive process and randomness is of no consequence. I doubt that the paleontologists are any where near the exhaustive point but each year they try their best to sample the eras they are short on and the geographical areas they are short on so as to approach an exhaustive sample. Your request to constantly provide examples is a ridiculous one. Take any major complex functional capability of any organism and find a transition to it from an organism without it. Be my guest. If one wants to believe in gradualism, then one has to provide examples not constantly badger someone else to provide the non examples. Pick whatever wings suit your fancy. I say there are no transitions, so disprove me. I can tell you what are the crown jewels of gradualism and that is the forrest animal to whale transition and the head bones of a reptile to the head bones of a mammal. Do your own research. The final nail in the coffin of gradualism is that there exist no examples of transitions in the current suite of organisms on the planet that demonstrate a gradual transition from one species to another with distinctly different functional capabilities. There are lots of similar variants or species but all are explained by micro evolution and the reshuffling of the current gene pool and none that represent the origin of complex functional capabilities. Gradualism predicts a constant forking in the road as species climb Mt, Improbable and all these forks should be visible in current species or in fossilized versions but alas, none. Which is why we say that gradualism is the most falsified theory in the history of science. The reason it is the most falsified is that it still hangs around after such massive falsification. No other theory would survive 1% of the falsification that gradualism has had. I suggest you read Behe's Edge of Evolution to try to understand the debate. ID says that changes can happen but these changes are limited in their extent.jerry
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
On the completeness of the fossil record: jerry wrote, "If you like specific numbers then the following is from Denton’s Evolution, a Theory in Crisis: 1 - There are 43 known living orders of vertebrates and 42 have been found in the fossil record. Thus, it is very unlikely that there are unknown orders that existed for which there is no fossil representative. 2 - There are 329 living families of vertebrates and 261 have been found as fossils or about 80%. If one removes birds from this count there are 178 families of vertebrates and 156 of them have been found as fossils or 88%. The birds have only 70% fossilization. Thus, it is unlikely that there are many families that have existed but failed to be fossilized. Thus to argue the fossil record is incomplete when it seems to have been able to find most of the current vertebrate life forms and not to find any of the millions of transitional species that are necessary for gradualism is ludicrous." Denton's analysis makes no sense. He's looking in the wrong direction. The issue is not the percentage of living organisms that have relatives in the fossil record. The issue is what percentage of all the extinct organisms that ever lived on the planet earth is represented in the fossil record. In order to determine that percentage, one has to know the denominator of the fraction - and that is not known. Symbolically, N = the number of known fossils, L = the number of living families, E = the number of extinct organisms that ever lived. Denton's ratio is N/L, but the meaningful ratio in terms of completeness is N/E. If you haven't read it, Gould's Wonderful Life, about the discovery and analysis of the Burgess Shale, is as exciting as a detective story and enlightening about the role of chance in paleontology and how little we still know about the history of life on earth. Note that the findings about the Burgess were important and revolutionary, because most of the organisms found there had no counterparts in currently living phyla. They were evolutionary dead ends that add to the denominator in the N/E equation.Daniel King
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
jerry said, "Try wings." I take this as an example of "novel complex functionality." I was insure about what you were referring to. Now I see that you're thinking of major adaptations. In the case of wings, could you be more specific: are you thinking of the wings of insects, extinct reptiles (pterosaurs), living mammals (bats), or birds? After you choose one of these areas for discussion, please identify two organisms, either living or extinct, that represent the two sides of the gap between wingless and winged. And, as I asked previously, describe what you think a transitional organism should look like if it would have bridged that gap. I'm trying to pin you down on the precision of your thinking about these matters. Your remarks about the mollusk shells above suggest that you might be substituting seat-of-the pants guesswork for informed scientific analysis. You also wrote, "Why don't you suggest some?" Again, if you're thinking of "novel complex functionality" in terms of major adaptations, how about the transition from fish to amphibians, from reptiles to birds, or from land-dwelling mammals to sea-dwelling mammals, such as whales?Daniel King
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
-----Jerry: "Do you think Darwin has/had his price? They say everyone does." You tell me. You wrote, "I am very different from Dave Scot on a recent comment he made. I do not want to buy Darwin, I want to demote him.”StephenB
July 19, 2008
July
07
Jul
19
19
2008
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
StephenB, Do you think Darwin has/had his price? They say everyone does.jerry
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Jerry, OK. Then I trust that we are in agreement that Dave does not want to "buy" Darwin.StephenB
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Daniel King, you said, "But what I hope jerry will do is provide an example of two organisms that are separated by a gap that he considers important with respect to a “novel complex functionality” that he referred to in post #21." Try wings. Why don't you suggest some?jerry
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
M. Baldwin, you said "gradualism however, I’ve seen pictures of progressions in the fossil record that could only be called “gradual”. For example, evolution of the horse seems well documented. What’s your position on that sort of thing? All micro-evolution?" I was looking intensely to answer Daniel King above for a photo series of mollusk shell changes that took place over time but in the end it was essentially the same mollusk that started. Someone once provided this to me as sure evidence for evolution without realizing it undermined his case. In other words a detailed transition to essentially the same place. The new mollusk was essentially the same as the initial mollusk only with a markedly different shell. Why was I searching for the photos of this sequence? In order to show that the fossil record does contain transitions but when it does it supports ID, not falsifies it by showing, that is there is no meaningful new material. In other words this fossil set of photographs is evidence of ID. Similarly with the horse series which I understand is a little bit controversial but again it essentially supports ID by showing the fossil record can record transition series and when it does it is pure micro evolution. and no threat to ID. When a transition is necessary to support macro evolution, the fossil record is silent even though every age since the Cambrian has been sampled hundreds of times. Again, it is possible that there may be a rock formation that may be found with lots of possible intermediates but so far it has not been for the lack of trying. you said "If you’d expect the fossil record we do in fact see then can design make predictions, as “evolution” can as to where so called “transitional” fossils are to be found, as “evolution” has famously done? They went and dug, they found?" How many of these famous fossil finds have there been? I know every once in a while this claim is made and we hear a lot about it, especially Tiktaalik. But let me ask a question of any paleontologist that may be reading. How often is an excavation in a certain area made with the grant indicating that a certain area may provide unknown species or intermediaries? Do people plan their digs every year in order to find the same stuff? Given the number of excavations how often do we hear we looked, we dug and we found exactly what we were looking for, a specific intermediate. Not often. you asked "Is this from personal experience?" Yes, I was in an Ph.D program once and was ABD before joining my wife and her business partner in starting up a new business which was much more financially rewarding than teaching. When I told one of my advisors that I was "card carrying Christian" when he asked if I was religious he became a little startled and from that time on a warm relationship became cool. My main advisor didn't care a bit even though he had no religious beliefs. I didn't know any Ph.D on the faculty at the school I was at that had any religious beliefs though some of the students did. We never discussed it and never thought it was an issue till the change in behavior by one of my professors.jerry
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
M.Baldwin-jerry: Thanks, you've saved me a lot of typing. Please carry on without me. But what I hope jerry will do is provide an example of two organisms that are separated by a gap that he considers important with respect to a "novel complex functionality" that he referred to in post #21. And then he will tell us what is missing from the fossil record that he would consider to be a transitional organism that bridges the gap (if it existed). And then we (or you) can proceed with the discussion...Daniel King
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
"I too like Shakespeare and my favorite play is Henry V and Laurence Olivier’s portrayal in the movie and his St. Crispin’s Day speech. Maybe the best in all Shakespeare." I liked Kenneth Brannaugh's better.CannuckianYankee
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Jerry,
I think the high percentage of atheists and agnostics is very close of those in science in general and not just evolutionary biologists. It is almost a requirement for entering academia these days.
Is this from personal experence?M.Baldwin
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Jerry, Thanks for the answer regarding the fossil record. a) re: gradualism however, I've seen pictures of progressions in the fossil record that could only be called "gradual". For example, evolution of the horse seems well documented. What's your position on that sort of thing? All micro-evolution? b) If you'd expect the fossil record we do in fact see then can design make predictions, as "evolution" can as to where so called "transitional" fossils are to be found, as "evolution" has famously done? They went and dug, they found?M.Baldwin
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
StephenB, I too like Shakespeare and my favorite play is Henry V and Laurence Olivier's portrayal in the movie and his St. Crispin's Day speech. Maybe the best in all Shakespeare. So I am well aware of the quote from the funeral oration in Julius Caesar and understood Dave's use of it. I have been to Phillipi where Cassius and Brutus lost to Marc Anthony and Octavius and also to Actium where Marc Anthony lost to Octavius. There is nothing at Actium anymore except a few Roman ruins and the port is now a Greek resort town called Preveza. I believe the best use of Darwin is to keep him around as a minor figure and hang him out to dry as another guy who got caught up in his own arrogance. He should not be buried but humbled but he did start something and micro evolution is serious science despite what the people here seem to want to believe or the fact that the scientists are all agnostic or atheists. The more fun it will be to call them on the theory's shortcomings but currently there is no access to do this because of all the nonsense a lot of ID proponents put out. I think the high percentage of atheists and agnostics is very close of those in science in general and not just evolutionary biologists. It is almost a requirement for entering academia these days.jerry
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
-----Jerry, you said: "I am very different from Dave Scot on a recent comment he made. I do not want to buy Darwin, I want to demote him." I think you may have misread Dave Scot's comments. He loves Shakespeare and he was alluding to Marcus Antony's funeral oration, the opening line of which reads, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears, I came to bury Caesar not to praise him." His point was that, in spite of his outrage over the Darwin/Hitler fiasco, he does nevertheless wants to "bury" Darwin not to praise him. Also, according to a recent study, 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are either atheist or agnostic. I’m not sure what to make of that, but I think it is worth thinking about.StephenB
July 18, 2008
July
07
Jul
18
18
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply