The ammended point was not directed at crazyguy. Besides my original suggestion was quoted, so...
Perhaps I should stay out of evolution/creation threads. People annoy me. Ignorant people more so.
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy 261 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Max Divergent
I understood the amended post. No sweat.
Ignorance is on the way out. It's just stubborn.
-
rawe
Hi Crazyguy,
You've raised a number of objections I too at one time felt dealt the theory of evolution a fatal blow. Rather than answer them one by one, I would like to suggest you read three books. I would be interested in your views on them afterwards or now if you've already read them.
The books are:
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller and On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.
A major turning point in my thinking happened while trying to help a friend of mine who had left the faith. I bought him and me a copy of Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. This was the first time I read any material on the theory of evolution outside of what had been provided by Jehovah's Witnesses. Behe is both religious (Roman Catholic) and a microbiologist. He rejects the notion that a series of random events could have resulted in the complex biological systems we see at the cellular level. I am not sure, but he may have even coined the term "Irreducibly Complex." Since these biological machines were only discovered after Darwin's time, Behe points out these things were a "black box" to Darwin.
Behe would eventually be interviewed by Awake!
A couple of things immediately struck me about his book. One is he fully believes that the theory of evolution operates on life, once life had been placed here by some intelligent agency. I knew that was not compatible with my beliefs as a Witness! Second was his example of the blood clotting cascade being IC didn't jive with something that had happened in Canada. Unlike the USA, in Canada, blood was not tested for HIV (it is now of course) and as a result many became infected with AIDS. When Horace Krever ran his Royal Inquiry on this he apparently wound up interviewing the oldest living hemophiliac in Canada. This individual did not take Factor VIII like others, because he was a Witness and did not wish to take this blood-based product. So... it struct me, isn't hemophilia actually what Behe said could not exist -- i.e. a blood clotting system with one of the parts missing? Yet, obviously it still worked well enough that this person was able to live.
It was then my friend gave me a copy of Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. His religious views are exactly like Michael Behe, Roman Catholic. His education and expertise is also similar -- microbiologist. His book shook my world to its foundations! I knew by the end, Miller, not Behe had won the argument on this subject. Not only does he masterfully deal with Behe's arguments but also that of several others. I also realized why scientist in this field as a general rule accept the theory of evolution as sound. Shortly after reading this book I resigned as an elder.
Only later after I had left the faith did I start to think about an objection we would often present to people who were critical of the Bible. We would ask, respectfully, had the person actually read the Bible? Had they studied it? Thus I set upon reading Charles Darwin's book On The Origin of Species. The book, I will grant is not an easy read (at least for me). It has some long run-on sentences and long build up of foundational arguments before making a point. The first thing that jumped out at me is how modern and up-to-date the text reads, compared to the writings of Charles Russell. Both men wrote within a few decades of each other. The first Zion's Watchtower was written in 1879 and On the Origin of Species was written 20 years earlier in 1859. Russell's writings read like silly nonsense by comparison, especially on the subject of science.
Cheers,
-Randy
ps. Here is my, perhaps lame, attempt at some humor. Evolution is crap, to rabbits! Their digestive systems are setup such that material must pass completely through the system first, then be reintroduced at the start. Yes, it is apparently true, rabbits must eat their own feces to survive!
-
Julia Orwell
Hehe also wrote 'The Edge of Evolution' in which he discusses the evidence for evolution and also examines the gaps scientists are still studying. A lot of people hear, 'creationism!' without actually looking at what he writes, when he actually isn't a creationist! It's just like when creationist arc up over a Richard Dawkins book based on their assumptions about what it's about rather than actually reading it. I'm happy to read all takes on evolution and theistic evolution. Or intelligent design. Or anything. One must keep an open mind and if one wishes to lay claim to intellectual honesty, one must be prepared to read up on all arguments.
-
Satanus
Rawe
Sorry, im trying to follow what you are saying.
'This individual did not take Factor VIII like others, because he was a Witness and did not wish to take this blood-based product. So... it struct me, isn't hemophilia actually was Behe said could not exist -- i.e. a blood clotting system with one of the parts missing? Yet, obviously it still worked well enough that this person was able to live.'
Are you referring to the irreducible complexity idea? Or, that blood cells adapted? Thanks.
S
-
cofty
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller and On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. - Rawe
A lot of people hear, 'creationism!' without actually looking at what he writes, when he actually isn't a creationist! - Julie Orwell
Behe is a creationist who hides behind scientific-sounding words to garner credibility with those who don't understand the arguments.
He could not be less like Kenneth Miller who tore his ideas to shreds in the Dover trial.
His arguments about irreducible complexity are a rehash of Paley's watch that Darwin refuted 150 years ago. His focus is on biological systems like the blood-clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum which he says are "too complex" to evolve. Whenever you read the word "complexity" you know you are dealing with a creationist.
The whole purpose of the ID movement is to sneak creationism into education by confusing people with pseudo-science.
Here is a video of Miller explaining why ID is not science. It would be 2 hours well spent if you can find the time.
-
rawe
Hi S,
Are you referring to the irreducible complexity idea? Or, that blood cells adapted? Thanks.
I'm referring to the irreducible complexity idea. I would have read Behe book sometime time before 2005, so my recall may be off. But I recall he used three examples of IC biological systems, a little biological motor that moves a rotofer(sp?) tail, the immune system and how blood clots. In all cases he made the point all the parts of the system must be in place for it to work, remove a single part and it fails. I am a software engineer, not a biologist, so in many ways all I can do with arguments like this is assume the expert (Behe) has considered all possible ways the system could be reduced and has found none. Thus it struck me, that a layman such as myself could immediately think of a response to the blood clotting cascade argument.
I further found it ironic, that it was my interest in how blood works, stimulated by our views on blood transfusions, that gave me the knowledge about Factor VIII.
One of the Latin phrases you find in Darwin's book is "natura non facit saltus", which translates "nature makes no jumps." Only after reading Miller's book, did I fully appreciate IC is an attack on natura non facit saltus. And, that is a good thing, we should look for IC systems. Because attacking and attempting to kill a theory is what science is about. But we also need to be honest and avoid saying something is IC when it can easily (by other experts) be shown that it is not.
Even though I don't agree with Behe's views, I still think it is a great book for Witnesses with an interest in this subject to start with. Mostly because Behe has been quoted in the publications and even received an extensive interview with his picture in Awake! Thus there should be no objection to reading his material. Then, since Kenneth Miller is aligned with Behe in terms of expertise and religious views, I see no reason why anyone in the faith should object to reading his book.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
cofty
since Kenneth Miller is aligned with Behe in terms of expertise
Miller is a theist who practices real science by adhering to methodological naturalism.
Behe is a creationist who wants to halt sceintific investigation by inserting supernatural answers.
There are naturalistic answers to how the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum evolved.
Irreducible complexity is a failed argument and Behe's book has been thoroughly discredited as was demonstrated at Dover.
-
rawe
Hi Cofty,
The whole purpose of the ID movement is to sneak creationism into education by confusing people with pseudo-science.
Enormous efforts have been made to calculate the precise number of Pi. This past March 14th my daughter posted "Happy Pi Day" to me on Facebook. A Google search is reporting we've computed upto 5 trillion digits of Pi now! So it seems when the pursuit of science has no theological implcations or there is no emotional attachement to an appealing, but ultimately wrong view, it can proceed without problems.
I now often think of a man I called on several times and also work with in Canada. He was older and well read. And he tried is darnest to help me see how my creationist views were flawed. He even had several of the books quoted by Life How Did It Get Here? -- By Evolution or Creation?. Yet, I was not prepared at the time to let go. I had far too much invested in my JW faith.
I really felt Behe could provide comfort for my creationist views, alas, just the opposite. He invites his readers to take a deeper view and that was the beginning of the end for me.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
TD
I think for some people, Behe and Denton provide a 'safe' environment to learn a little more about the subject before they plunge directly into Dawkins and Coyne
I also understand why someone who had the intestinal fortitude and/or common sense to skip the former two guys might find that irritating.