Evolution and Theology (An open letter to the creationists)

[scotth]

*Originally posted by Dave Armstrong *
**In other words, my position is that ID is philosophical, and can be neither proven nor disproven empirically. **

Now that is an interesting statement.

My big questions for you now:

1. Do you support teaching ID in adjunct to or instead of evolution in a science classroom?
2. Why did you even bother posting to this thread? I.D. is supposed to be a supportable scientific theory. You spouted all kinds of “scientific” evidence, and then you fall back to this position? What a pant load.
3. Please reconcile with your statement "I use my mind and my critical faculties to decide for myself, thank you. I don’t believe things simply because someone tells me I HAVE to believe them (whether a religious person in a frock or a scientist in a white coat). That’s not how critical thinking works. So if you or anyone else has a hard time with me exercising my skepticism and critical faculties with regard to difficult questions of the origins of the universe and life and currently fashionable theories about same, too bad. "
4. And why even bother quoting Behe with that attitude?

And crap, on preview I see this statement has caught another’s eye.

[Dave_Armstrong]

*Originally posted by scotth *
**Guess my posts fall into the pompous lamentations category? **

I’ll read them now and make a determination of whether or not that is the case. Given the pathetic and embarrassing performance of your comrades the last few days, I must confess that I am not particularly hopeful.

But you may be a welcome exception to the rule and a breath of fresh air in this flatulent and juvenile atmosphere. After all, you stated at the beginning, after my first post :

I think I shall enjoy your stay, I hope you do as well.

I have not (except for the comedic value); I never enjoy ring-around-the-rosey with people who take the lowest imaginable view of their dialogical opponents’ abilities and motives (which, of course, makes constructive discourse impossible), and refuse to discuss things calmly and rationally, minus the gratuitous insults. So I won’t be here long, if “dialogue” continues in that vein (as appears likely), per my words up-front: “If there is good discussion to be had, I will hang around.”

I suspect I will then be pilloried as a coward, if I leave. I don’t care. Make fools of yourselves once again if you wish. The truth is that it is a matter of principle for me. I value dialogue too much to waste time in a venue where the very concept is butchered and debased (and contrary to the board rules, of course, but – to be fair – that shortcoming is almost universal on the Internet).

I don’t consider a bunch of pompous buffoons sitting around smugly patting themselves on the back and hurling a constant stream of invective against a new participant – because they can’t muster up rational arguments and can’t handle the slightest critique of their views – “good discussion,” sorry.

But it makes for an awfully entertaining paper on my website, and will make a great point about dogmatic and arrogant attitudes, as well as commonly-used sophistry and obfuscatory tactics, so all is not lost.

Now let’s go see if you can rise above the herd mentality of your friends who hang around this place . . .

Yours,

Dave

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by Dave Armstrong *
I have not (except for the comedic value); I never enjoy ring-around-the-rosey with people who take the lowest imaginable view of their dialogical opponents’ abilities and motives (which, of course, makes constructive discourse impossible), and refuse to discuss things calmly and rationally, minus the gratuitous insults

I think my hypocrisy meter just broke…

So, tell me, Dave, can you make a single post without:
a) generalizing about the supposed nature of your opponents
b) insulting them in the process
c) resorting to imagined martyrdom (“I suspect I will then be pilloried as a coward, if I leave.”)

My guess is “no”, since you have failed to do so thus far. There’s a reason people here think you’re an arrogant, smug, pseudo-philosopher. And it’s not because we’re evolutionists or materialists.

You ask, you receive, you dismiss. That has been your sole “contribution” to this fiasco. You have yet to offer any sort of rationale for your dismissal, despite being asked numerous times for such.

If you’re going to behave like an ass, you shouldn’t act so surprised when your posts are interpreted as braying.

[tomndebb]

I don’t consider a bunch of pompous buffoons sitting around smugly patting themselves on the back and hurling a constant stream of invective against a new participant – because they can’t muster up rational arguments and can’t handle the slightest critique of their views – “good discussion,” sorry.

Excuse me? How do you purport to separate yourself from those you excoriate, here? You have been hurling invective from your very first post and I have not yet seen your “rational argument,” so why do you think that you are different?

Actually, I don’t even want to hijack this thread with that discussion. I would, however, like to know why you have entered a discussion on science and immediately retreated to holding a “philosophical” position that does not admit of science?

There is no conflict between religion and science except when people of religion try to insist that they can use religion to trump science. That was the point of the OP (generally directed toward Young Earth Creationists rather than believers in Intelligent Design or Irreducible Complexity). To enter such a discussion of science claiming to champion ID only to retreat to a position “that ID is philosophical, and can be neither proven nor disproven empirically” is to say that you accidentally stumbled into the wrong discussion. It certainly does nothing to further the interests of others who may wish to believe that ID or IC are actually scientific.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Hi Diog! Ya got anything of substance to add to the “debate” today?

God, you’re a crybaby. Well, I’m still waiting for you to respond to my post yesterday in which I explained basic philosophical method to you since you clearly have no understanding of it.

I leave the biology and science to those posters, such as Scott, Ben and Darwin who are more qualified than I am. My background is in philosophy and religion. I have noticed that your posts are riddled with logical fallacies and valueless tautologies.

If you take some time to look around the SDMB you will find that most people here are not the knee-jerk, anti-Christian bullies which you seem to want them to be. Even in this thread, other Christians and theistic evolutionists have been treated with respect and good will. We are not anti-Christian here. We ARE anti-bullshit.

You came into this thread with a lot of smug assertions, and some not very good science to back them up. Every single pseudoscientific point you have tried to raise has been thoroughly debunked. Every supposedly “difficult” question has been answered, usually multiple times. Rather than either addressing your rebuttals head on with sound science, or simply admitting you were wrong, you have resorted to name calling, hollow ridicule (typing LOL over and over again is hardly an effective debate tactic) and spurious “philosophy.” Your last post consists entirely of insults and baseless accusations without a single on point rebuttal on any issue of science or philosophy. When I actually SEE some substance, dude, I will respond in kind.

[scotth]

*Originally posted by scotth *
**Guess my posts fall into the pompous lamentations category? **

Well, I guess it did… I have never been judged like that except in the pit…

[scotth]

If this thread gets posted to his board… I hope he bothers to post of from when he entered and not just select pieces.

It should speak for itself for many people.

[Dave_Armstrong]

While you do better in avoiding ad hominem irrelevancies than your friends (but not
by much), and manage to actually put up a few arguments (though off-topic – my topic was always
the deficiency in materialistic evolutionary causal explanations of step-by-step process), still, you
fall into the apparently irresistible urge to make me out an ignoramus or exceptionally
hard-hearted or both. That makes true dialogue impossible, and so my last hope for that here is
now dashed. Too bad.

Just a little advice: next time eliminate the potshots (including many flat-out lies) and you might
find a person like me willing to talk to you (I certainly was in the beginning, or else I wouldn’t
have shown up). You were the one (as the originator of the thread) who was seeking such
discussion, and it looks like I could have been “your man,” if only you would have refrained from
your insipid and boorish assaults upon my intellectual capacities and supposed closed-mindedness
(because, – so you say – I am clinging to an outmoded hermeneutic of Genesis, which, in fact,
few educated Christians have held for 150 years).

Moreover, St. Augustine [d. 430 – that’s, um, 1572 years ago; 15.7 centuries] held to the
non-literal interpretation of the Hebrew yom (“day”) – which indeed, can have a great variety of
meanings, according to any Hebrew lexicon:

 The narrative does indeed tell us that light was created by God, and that God 
 separated that light from the darkness, and gave to the light the name of 'day', and 
 to the darkness the name of 'night'. But what kind of light that was, and with what 
 alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this 
 evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible 
 experience.

 (St. Augustine, City of God, translated by Henry Bettenson, edited by David 
 Knowles, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, 436, Book XI, ch. 7)

Augustine also posited a primitive evolutionary concept:

  This theory of primordial packages of forms later to emerge (often referred to by
 commentators as "seminal reasons") is certainly developmental, but does not 
 correspond with Darwinian evolution. Essential to Augustine's theory is the idea that 
 the order later to emerge was instilled by God in the beginning. Augustine also 
 requires subsequent interventions by God to "plant" the forms whose "numbers" had 
 already been instilled. Thus, as St. Thomas [Aquinas] points out, the ability of the 
 earth to produce living forms was visualized by Augustine as a passive potency which
 disposed the matter to receive the forms but did not create the forms themselves. 
 Augustine's theory of primordial packages deserves more ample meditation and 
 analysis in another place, especially with reference to theories of the development 
 of living things,

 . . . Genesis 1:6-8 witnesses in several ways to the creative action of God. As the
 divine Fashioner of the universe, God guided the energies that He had invested in the 
 primal matter by his creative intervention on the first day to bring the cosmos to its 
 structured state. This is the unfolding of the active potency contained in St. 
 Augustine's "primordial packages." But there is also implied in these verses an 
 upward progress in the order of inorganic being which seems to have required 
 additional creative divine interventions. I leave it to more qualified thinkers to sort 
 this out,

 (A Neo-Patristic Return to the First Four Days of Creation, Part IV, John F. 
 McCarthy)

In this respect, St. Augustine was joined by Christian philosopher and theologian (one of the two
greatest; the other being himself), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

  A final question regards the rise of new forms of corporeal existence.
 St. Augustine understands the implanting of the forms of the various creatures 
 described in Genesis 1 to have taken place simultaneously with the act of creation in 
 the beginning, although he also distinguishes between the implantation of some forms 
 in the act of existence and the implantation of other forms causally in the potency of 
 the matter. (1) St. Thomas sees no contradiction in this interpretation, but he also 
 points out that forms are not "implanted" in the sense that they first exist outside of 
 their subject and then are instilled within. What actually happens is that both this 
 matter and this form come into existence simultaneously as this individual thing. (2) 
 But the question remains as to how higher forms can exist in the potency of the 
 matter of lower forms. St. Augustine sees plants as having existed originally in the 
 potency of the earth, and he goes on to say that, over the years down to the present, 
 God "plants" living things, as He planted the verdure of Paradise, in His ordinary 
 governance of all things. (3) Nevertheless, what needs to be clarified is the sense in 
 which God "plants" what was already created causally from the beginning. St. 
 Thomas cites Aristotle to the effect that for the generation of some vegetation all 
 that is needed is the power of the physical heaven in place of the father and the 
 power of the earth in place of the mother, (4) . . . 

 While St. Thomas affirms that new bodily forms arise by the interaction of bodies 
 upon one another, he also requires the intervention of God for the first production 
 of things. 

      In the first establishment (institutione) of things, the active principle 
      was the Word of God, which from elemental matter produced animals 
      either in act according to some of the Fathers or virtually according to 
      Augustine. Not that water or earth has in itself the power to produce all 
      of the animals, as Avicenna claimed, but the fact that animals can be 
      produced from elemental matter by the power of seed or of the 
      heavenly bodies comes from a power initially given to the elements. (5)

 It is easily within the power of God to have caused the mountains and the oceans to 
 take shape in a few hours . . . to have spread out the universe in an equally short time, 
 and to have created streams of light from the most distant galaxies just on the point 
 of reaching the earth. But it is by no means necessary to believe that God did this, 
 and no one should insist that the text of Genesis demands such a reading. St. 
 Augustine (6) and St. Thomas (7) both point out that it would not have been contrary 
 to divine wisdom for God to have performed the work of creation according to a 
 pattern that natural processes would afterwards imitate, and it is known today that
 natural processes tend to follow a developmental pattern. St. Augustine and St. 
 Thomas also warn against unnecessarily defending readings of the Scripture which 
 go against what natural science and experience seem to indicate, as is taken to be 
 the case with the 24-hour interpretation of the six days of creation. The text of 
 Genesis 1 is open to the interpretation of the six days of creation as six
 undefined periods of time which are called days because they are sub-divided into a 
 time of darkness followed by a time of light . . . 

 St. Augustine explains, or rather hypothesizes, that in one sense the entire creation 
 took place in an instant, and, therefore, there was no problem of plant life's being 
 said to have existed before the sun. But, in affirming this, St. Augustine also
 distinguishes between what was created in actual being and what was created 
 potentially in the packages of powers ("seminal reasons") with which God endowed 
 elemental matter in the first instant of creation. In the view of St. Augustine, primal 
 matter developed upward after the first moment of its creation because of the plan 
 of development that God had instilled in it and because of certain formative 
 interventions that God continued to make even after the first six days of creation. 
 We must admit that Augustine does not attempt clearly to determine how much 
 upward "development" was already included in the original instant of creation and 
 how much came after that instant. (8) . . . 

 . . . the idea of a long period of development does not in itself conflict with either 
 the letter or the spirit of the Scriptures; it simply illustrates the transcendence and 
 the eternity of God, for Whom a thousand million years is not even one instant in
 our psychological time-experience.

 Notes

 1) Aquinas, Summa Theologica (S. Th.) I, q. 69, art. 2, corp. Cf. LT 47, pp. 5-7.
 2) S. Th. I, q. 65, art. 4, corp.
 3) Augustine, De Gen. ad litt., V, 4.
 4) Aquinas, II Sent., dist. 14, q. 1, art. 5, ad 6.
 5) S. Th. I, q. 71, art. 1, ad 1.
 6) Cf. Augustine, De Gen. ad litt., II, 15.
 7) Cf. Aquinas, S. Th., I, q. 74, art. 2, ad 4.
 8) Cf. Augustine, De Gen. ad litt., V, 4.

 (A Neo-Patristic Return to the First Four Days of Creation, Part VI, John F. 
 McCarthy)

As for the modern Catholic approach to Genesis, the 16-volume Catholic Encyclopedia of 1916,
(vol. 4, 473) states in its article on “Creation”:

  Catholic exegetes are allowed the widest liberty of interpretation . . . Accordingly, 
 we find some theologians following Augustine . . . that the six days signify only a 
 logical (not a real) succession . . . Others interpret the days as indefinite cosmical 
 periods. Others, though these are at present a vanishing number, still follow the 
 literal interpretation . . . 

 . . . all that Catholic Faith teaches is that the beginnings of plant and animal life are 
 due in some way to the productive power of God . . . St. Augustine and St. Thomas . . . 
 hold that only the primordial elements, endowed with dispositions and powers 
 (rationes seminales) for development, were created in the strict sense of the term, 
 and the rest of nature -- plant and animal life -- was gradually evolved according to 
 a fixed order of natural operation under the supreme guidance of the Divine 
 Administration . . . the Catholic thinker is left perfectly free by his faith to select 
 [this option].

In its article on “Evolution” (vol. 5, 654-655), the Catholic Encyclopedia cites St. Thomas Aquinas
and another great Catholic philosopher and theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617):

  The potency of a cause is greater, the more remote the effects to which it extends.

 (Summa contra Gentiles, III, c. lxxvii)

 God does not interfere directly with the natural order, where secondary causes 
 suffice to produce the intended effect.

 (De opere sex dierum, II, c. x, n. 13)

And it also states (p. 655):

  That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the 
 production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. 
 Augustine . . . 

So I’m afraid that Genesis (and respect for science and the theistic form of evolution among
Catholics and other Christians) is alive and well, and has been for quite some time now. Copernicus
and Mendel and Pasteur and Pascal (even Galileo) were good Catholics, last time I checked. We
learn things all the time in biblical hermeneutics, just as scientists do in their field. No big deal
there. To turn the tables and use some of your own rhetoric against you:

                      You better understand the complete Bible and biblical hermeneutics 
                     and exegesis and the latest scholarship in biblical archaeology and  
                      ancient Mesopotamian and Semitic culture and language, as
                     conveyed by Bible scholars, Hebrew and Greek scholars, and other students 
                     of the Bible, not the skewed representation of Genesis presented by 
                     Christianity's and the Bible's skeptical, non-believing, unregenerate 
                     detractors, besides the obvious requirement . . . Understanding the point 
                     of view you wish to forward.

I assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about when you declaim upon the downfall
of all “factuality” in Genesis. Now you are in my ballpark, and if you ventured into this discussion
with a Bible scholar (I am a mere lay apologist), who knew much about the interpretation of
Genesis (unlike yourself) you would end up looking far, far more foolish than you and your
friends think you have made me look here.

And let it be duly noted that I said not a word about Genesis; nor did I introduce a biblical
perspective into the discussion; you did that. I never once mentioned the words, “Bible” or
“Scripture” or “Genesis” in my posts till you brought it up presently. But since you insist on
pontificating about subjects where you are clearly in over your head (the interpretation of
Genesis), I have now responded (and after all, I am a Catholic/Christian apologist).

I’m much closer to a theistic evolutionary position than ever, after perusing this fascinating
material from Augustine and Aquinas. Not that I didn’t know these things at all previously (I got
the information from links on my website); it is a matter of various influences on thought
operating over time, affecting the “plausibility structures” in one’s mind, in conjunction with
various other views.

This was not due at all – needless to say – to anyone in this forum, many of whom remain
irrationally and stubbornly “certain” that my mind is unalterably closed, and who offered nothing
that persuaded me in the least. You and the others can think about me whatever you wish (I’ve
been called much worse in my dialogical encounters: I didn’t become an apologist to win a
popularity contest), but I hope that at least people can learn from this experience and grasp the
concept of correctly and accurately identifying a person’s position next time.

Again, I clearly announced myself here as an agnostic on the question of evolution. I was strictly
opposing materialistic evolution the whole time, not evolution per se. I’ve always thought that God
could create in whatever manner He chose, so that is no new thing, either, in my opinions. I was
never a fundamentalist, even when I was an evangelical Protestant. Now I may be fairly close to a
position of theistic evolution, am quite interested in it, and might possibly adopt it in the
not-too-distant future.

May God bless you all, and farewell.

Dave

[Epimetheus]

Thats the wordiest dodge out I have ever seen.

[tomndebb]

I assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about when you declaim upon the downfall of all “factuality” in Genesis. Now you are in my ballpark, and if you ventured into this discussion with a Bible scholar (I am a mere lay apologist), who knew much about the interpretation of Genesis (unlike yourself) you would end up looking far, far more foolish than you and your
friends think you have made me look here.

Only one person on this thread has been capable of making you look foolish.

What point are you trying to make? In case it escaped your attention, several of the posters in this thread are, themselves, theistic evolutionists. I do not see any of us leaping to your defense, because (I suspect) we cannot figure out what you are trying to say. You continue to argue against “materialist” philosophy when every other participant, here, is discussing the science (and you seem to have deliberately ignored any effort to show that adherents to theistic evolutionary thought have no trouble reconciling both their philosophical/theological theism with the scientific description of evolution). It is almost as if you were using this thread as simply a place to argue some esoteric point that is unassociated with the submissions of other posters.

---

One note of advice: the posts on this Forum are held to be the property of the Chicago Reader. While you may link to this thread from your web site, and even comment upon the posts made here, any extended quotations from this site should probably be cleared with the Chicago Reader to avoid copyright infringement.

[tomndebb]

BTW, Dave, the statement to which I just responded was prefaced by the statement

To turn the tables and use some of your own rhetoric against you:

You better understand the complete Bible and biblical hermeneutics and exegesis and the latest scholarship in biblical archaeology and . . . .

However, I cannot find your embedded quotation anywhere on this thread. How are you using his “own rhetoric against” him when you are not quoting anyone in this discussion? Are you carrying on multiple debates somewhere and have crossposted some comments, accidentally, to the wrong forum?

Again, it appears that you are not even engaged in this discussion, but are simply posting here arguments that you enjoy using elsewhere without any particular context to this thread.

[Dave_Armstrong]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**BTW, Dave, the statement to which I just responded was prefaced by the statement

However, I cannot find your embedded quotation anywhere on this thread. How are you using his “own rhetoric against” him when you are not quoting anyone in this discussion? Are you carrying on multiple debates somewhere and have crossposted some comments, accidentally, to the wrong forum?

Again, it appears that you are not even engaged in this discussion, but are simply posting here arguments that you enjoy using elsewhere without any particular context to this thread. **
[/QUOTE]

Wow…

Here is scotth’s original comment:

 . . . 5) You better understand the complete proposed
                     mechanism of evolution as understood by its adherents,
                     not the skewed representation presented by evolutions
                     detractors, besides the obvious requirement...
                     6) Understanding the point of view you wish to forward.

I satirized it as follows:

You better understand the complete Bible and biblical hermeneutics
and exegesis and the latest scholarship in biblical archaeology and
of ancient Mesopotamian and Semitic culture and language, as
conveyed by Bible scholars, Hebrew and Greek scholars, and other students
of the Bible, not the skewed representation of Genesis presented by
Christianity’s and the Bible’s skeptical, non-believing, unregenerate
detractors, besides the obvious requirement . . . Understanding the point
of view you wish to forward.

You seem like a decent fellow, so I wanted to answer this. As for understanding what I am arguing, you’ll soon have the paper on my website. You’ll understand it if you read it without hostility and try to hear what I am saying.

As far as I am concerned, I made it very clear all along. It might be a bit complex and different, but I spelled it out, every step of the way. People just didn’t want to hear it, and so they didn’t. That’s very common in dialogues, believe me, and I’ve been doing hundreds of such dialogues for 21 years now, in my apologetics efforts, so I know something about that.

Now I’m outta here for good.

Cheers,

Dave

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Dave, you remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who kept getting his limbs hacked off while insisting that he hadn’t been injured. I’ve rarely seen someone so smug about so little.

The cites from Augustine and Aquinas are totally meaningless. They were purely theologians and their inferences only apply if you accept basic Christian predicates. Their value to a scientific discussion of a evolution is zero. I’m not even sure what you’re TRYING to prove here, that they thought that Genesis could be read as metaphorical? Well so what, who said it couldn’t be? You’re trying to abstract Genesis into a nebulous, all-purpose metaphor, and then argue that, on that basis, we can’t prove it’s not factual. Let me repeat,no one has said that Genesis can’t be read metaphorically. We have said that it can’t be read literally.
Having said that, though, even a metaphorical reading has its problems. For instance, Genesis says that the earth was created before the sun (or any other stars for that matter) now even if we stretch Biblical days into indeterminate metaphorical “eras” the earth would still have to be demonstrably older than the rest of the universe. Obviously this is not the case.

and if you ventured into this discussion
with a Bible scholar (I am a mere lay apologist), who knew much about the interpretation of
Genesis (unlike yourself) you would end up looking far, far more foolish than you and your
friends think you have made me look here.

Don’t you ever get tired of your own logical fallacies? There is nothing to “know” about Biblical interpretation, son. If you could KNOW it, it wouldn’t be INTERPRETATION, would it? Now you’re not even spouting your own tautologies, your citing the alleged authority of some other hypothetical “scholar” who has an even more sophisticated personal (and of course, unfalsifiable) “interpretation” of the Bible which could somehow be asserted to make evolutionists look foolish. Really, dude, you should take a basic philosophy course at your local community college and learn how to recognize logical fallacies. You can’t keep arguing from unpredicated assertions and calling yourself a philosopher.

Seriously, you would do better simply to state the Catholic Church’s positions on issues, and define them as such. I do not object to someone starting from a position of faith, as long as it is recognized that this starting point only works with those who share the same faith. You can’t brandish faith at an empiricist.

The Catholic position is not even at odds with evolutionists. Plenty of scientists believe in God. Some of them are even Catholic. Theistic evolution has gotten pretty popular these days, I would even venture to say it has become the prevailing worldview among rank and file Christians. They have accepted evolution and incorporated it into their faith just like they eventually accepted heliocentricism, and for the same reason. The evidence became too overwhelming to deny.

And maybe this is even the answer to the question that Scott asked in his OP all those pages ago. Biblical literalism will give way to science, but religious faith will not be deterred.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by scotth *
**Exactly so.

and If my previous posts do not make it clear, let me state this idea bluntly (even though I am presently quoting you, tomndebb, I am not accusing you of this).

1. Modern evolution and its evidence rests upon a large body of accumulated data and theory from a large number of fields.
2. To understand it and debate, requires a mastery of at least the rudiments of those other fields. Evolution does not exist in a vacuum.
3. Fields that come immediately to mind would be applied logic, chemistry, geology, archeology/paleontology, and even physics.
4. If you want to have a useful, debatable position on evolution vs any other idea you better understand the above AND
5. You better understand the complete proposed mechanism of evolution as understood by its adherents, not the skewed representation presented by evolutions detractors, besides the obvious requirement…
6. Understanding the point of view you wish to forward.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not all of those opinions are equally valuable. **

A fine list, but I would add philosophy. For me, the most convincing arguments come from Darwin’s Finch, who has a firm grasp of the underlying philosophical principles of science. It’s obvious that he has read at least some Popper.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Dave Armstrong *
As for understanding what I am arguing, you’ll soon have the paper on my website. You’ll understand it if you read it without hostility and try to hear what I am saying.

I look forward to reading it; please do post a link when it is ready.

Will you also be putting a link to this thread in your paper?

[David_B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Dave Armstrong said:

Except for this one, from Diogenes the Ass…, er Cynic:

Darwin’s Finch said:

If you’re going to behave like an ass, you shouldn’t act so surprised when your posts are interpreted as braying.

Diogenes the Cynic said:

God, you’re a crybaby.

Those are but three examples of what people in this thread should not be doing. I know there are more here as well.

So let me make this clear – if it continues, I’m going to get very angry. And you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

---

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[Mars_Horizon]

*Originally posted by David B *
So let me make this clear – if it continues, I’m going to get very angry. And you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

David - I never knew the “B” in your name was for Banner!

[scotth]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**A fine list, but I would add philosophy. For me, the most convincing arguments come from Darwin’s Finch, who has a firm grasp of the underlying philosophical principles of science. It’s obvious that he has read at least some Popper. **

I agree. I probably would have included that, but I kind of considered it a given if some of the other items were fulfilled… otherwise, I would have put it first on the list.

[scotth]

I think I might have just unraveled the mystery of Dave’s posts.

After rereading all the content a couple times, I may have cracked the code.

Right off the bat, he indicated he had a problem with materialist only doctrines. (Ok, I think we all got that part)… and then presented a bunch of hard evidence to support his position.

We all took that to mean that he thought he had hard evidence to support his position and we worked the entire time to show the evidence did not rigorously support his doctrinal position. And we stayed on that track throughout.

I don’t think anyone considered his right to hold any doctrinal position he felt like, so it never occurred to any of us that he was more interested in that side of the debate than the other.

Dave, assuming you are still watching this thread… try reading this thread in this light.

1. This thread was geared to hard evidence deniers that evolution happened at all.
2. During a lull in the action Dave brought in I.D., told us why he liked doctrinally, and gave us the hard evidence to support it.
3. We were never concerned about why he liked it doctrinally, as that was never the purpose of this thread. Rejection of evidence was the purpose. And nobody here would challenge his personal right to hold what ever doctrinal position he wanted regardless of the evidence, why would we think he wanted to debate that?
4. I, and it would appear everyone else, thought we were all on the same page in discussing the evidentiary position of the proposed doctrine.
5. Somewhere along the line (maybe right from the beginning), Dave switched gears away from being terribly concerned with the evidence side of things.
6. I don’t think we were ever (or at least for long) even debating the same thing.
7. Dave’s continued swings at the evidence, and not explicitly stating that he was completely switching gears, left everyone scratching their heads. (If the gear switching that I proposed is what happened, I would have suggested a new thread for that topic had I been aware)

I don’t know that this is accurate, but it makes his posts much more coherent to me.

[tomndebb]

Here is scotth’s original comment:

. . .

I satirized it as follows::

However, your “satire” was presented as if you were responding to an actual point he had made with no indication that you were responding to a straw figure of his position of your creation.

I suspect that I was on the right track and that scotth has nailed it: you are not even participating in the same discussion as the rest of us.

Since I have no problem with theistic evolution (being an adherent, myself), I guess I don’t see much point in continuing this posting at cross purposes whether you have actually departed or not. Have a nice time.