Re: EVOLUTION vs.anything else

by zagor 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  zagor

  For the record I do not appreciate argumentum ad hominem, unfortunately you are right many supporters of both camps love to attack personality and motives of somebody rather than what he/she has to say. WTBS are in fact masters of that trade, so no wonder that many that were under their wings by default develop those traits.

  But if you look impartially at what I've written above you'll see it is an honest invitation for other camp to learn more instead of just attacking. In fact, sometimes is better not to say anything than let our emotions run wild, 'cause we can never take back what we've said.
• 

  Forscher

  Good points Zagor! I'd understood that you weren't endulging in that kind of mess here, which may well have contributed to my missing the intended audience. I agree with 100% you that the Watchtower goes down that road, and with a vengance at times. I also see that it can be so easy for we, who were part of that organization to become that way because of that.
  I reckon it can be said that we all have alot of baggage to rid ourselves of from that time of our live. Well, cheers to you Zagor!
  Forscher
• 

  peacefulpete

  zagor before endorsing the book: Hidden History, Hidden Agenda
• 

  zagor

  peacefulpete,,

  Thank you for the link, I wasn't endorsing the book as such but merely said that there are some things, which are intriguing and are demanding an answer. I don't think authors have hidden agenda as such, they've pointedly described their worldview in the book so that prudent reader can filter out things he/she does not subscribe to or believe in. Likewise the fact that right from the outset it is self evident the book was published by Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing of Bhaktivedanta Institute from San Diego, i.e. not from Cambridge Press, Harvard Press or alike is enough to prepare a reader to what is to come.

  As for your article it is ful of argumentum ad hominem as described above. Just look at some of those sentences, which are by the way introductory sentences of each subsequent paragraph hence are psychologically conditioning mind of a reader in a way some religious literature such as that of WTBS origin does.

  Cremo and Thompson have little understanding of history and almost no understanding of the disciplines of paleoanthropology and archaeology....

  Cremo and Thompson's ignorance of the basic data of archaeology is exemplified by ...

  This is a book designed to titillate, not elucidate. ...

  Cremo and Thompson are selectively credulous to an astonishing degree.....

  Cremo and Thompson's claim that anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for hundreds of millions of years is an outrageous notion. ...

  At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what authors' agenda as such really was . It is hard to find any scientific book or a paper for that matter which does not have some sort of agenda attached to it. Everyone is trying to prove their point of view whether it is completely science based or has streaks of "unorthodox" or "meta-physical" when judged from outside.

  It is hence responsibility of people who want to refute someone’s findings to give an answer to each question posed instead of attacking author's personality, qualifications, motives, etc.

  As I've said I don't agree with number of things in the book (including that of ancient advanced civilization) but there are more of those that are intriguing than those I don't agree with. Moreover, authors more often than not give full reference of material including lots of context. Finally, it is not impossible to find original works they are quoting from.

  So Instead of just attacking their character those wanting to refute their claims can do a better job in discussing the evidence rather than attacking personalities and motives. One question peacefulpete, did you actually read the book or just critical commentaries of it?
• 

  Nate Merit

  Forscher, you know, I seem to recall the fundies drawwing first blood from me here in the person of Rex.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Zagor. I understand your trying to be as 'peacefull' as possible. I should say howevrr that characterization of an arguement or arguer is not in itself an ad hominem attack. The author of that short peice provided an example of misrepresentation of the material the book sourced. Considering the silliness of some of the author's positions and the antiestablishmentarianism (I never get to use that word) his cult stands for, citing only the one clear example of dishonesty is sufficient to discredit the body of the work. If there are sound points within the work they will be presented in a sober fashion by others without such an overt agenda. Its like suggesting reading the National Enquirer because at times they tell the truth.
• 

  Carmel

  After leaving the borg as a teenager I finished highschool and accepted an athletic scholarship which got me into a Junior College. I originally wanted to be a lawyer so took up Poly Sci as a major but became disgusted with the theory and practice. I jumped ship thanks to a wonderful professor of biology. He had been a football referee in many of the games I played in and seemed to be a nice chap. He was fantastic lecturer with more enthusiasm than any instructor I had ever encountered. He encouraged me to continue in the biological sciences which I did, majoring in zoology with a minor in biochem.

  Of course this enmeshed me in the whole issue of NeoDarwinism and as Watson and Crick had just published there block buster studies on the double helix I became entranced with genetics and its supporting role in the mechanism of evolution on the level of the allele. Biochem took that further and demonstrated how micro particles even lower than the allele could mutate by way of mechanical and chemical hapenstance. I read profusely but remained a skeptic while others around me were accepting extrapolations without question. To this day, I have no doubt that speciation and biodiverstiy are products of mechanistic forces, however, (the big BUT) there are still complexities of biological life that challenge this notion as the sole method of life evolving, let alone any notion that it explains how life evolved from non-life. How then Monarch butterfly knows to migrate without training each year to exactly the same destination, etc. etc. goes beyond DNA/RNA explanations. Forces we have not yet even imagined are at play and are so subtle that we are still rather crude in our level of appreciation. Billions of particles are passing through us each minute and until only relatively recently, we were totally unaware.

  How much more we have to discover and appreciate. Is it all the result of a fantastic number of happy accidents? When only one in a million mutations are thought to be "positive" (ie enhance our survival and our ability to propagate) it seems life itself is pretty unlikely outcome in a universe that is pretty hostile to live forms..

  The deck of cards is made up of Aces and 8s yet we are the Royal Flush that has emerged contrary to all statistical estimates.

  Count me as one who appreciates Darwin, Mendel and Watson and Crick, but holds out for a force greater than them all that is "intelligent" and seems to have "purpose".

  I also grow weary with the extremists on both ends of the scale that live in the world of false dichotomies.

  carmel
• 

  zagor

  Thank you Camel for your comments, I appreciate your point of view very much. Many times I wished to come across ID supporter who goes beyond usual rants. I'm not biologist myself as you are, my fields are physics and supercomputing. I agree that looking at complexities around us it is easy to resign to the idea of Supreme Being. In your opinion, would you say that is simply because of our limited experience, which in turn limits what we see as a common sense or is there a deeper connection for you personally where you despite everything you've seen couldn't make extrapolation from micro-evolutionary evidence to macro-evolution as we understand it today?