tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post6709817959973373904..comments2023-12-28T17:14:24.356-08:00Comments on Monkey Trials: PZ: EARNING OUR NOBILITYScott Hatfield . . . .http://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-44023426644774304392008-07-11T08:20:00.000-07:002008-07-11T08:20:00.000-07:00Can you point me to a contrary interpretation?Not ...<I>Can you point me to a contrary interpretation?</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure that I need to. It was just a literary gloss. <BR/><BR/>Yes, it is true that Darwin used the term 'descent with modification' rather than that of evolution, and in the <I>Origin</I> he only uses the word 'evolved' once, in the final paragraphs.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting to note that they appear here precisely at the same Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-19755928199622072152008-07-08T22:39:00.000-07:002008-07-08T22:39:00.000-07:00An apology to Stan, now that I have visited his we...<I> An apology to Stan, now that I have visited his website, in that I implied in my last comment he had a religious agenda. Stan is a self-avowed atheist.</I><BR/><BR/>A self-avowed <A HREF="http://www.atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">former atheist</A>, actually! And note also that the <A HREF="http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/" REL="nofollow">Atheism Analyzed</A> website you pointAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397352235608677895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-68938280922783939892008-07-08T12:04:00.000-07:002008-07-08T12:04:00.000-07:00An apology to Stan, now that I have visited his we...An apology to Stan, now that I have visited his website, in that I implied in my last comment he had a religious agenda. Stan is a self-avowed atheist. He is also hopelessly confused about the difference between philosophical induction and scientific induction. No need to take my word for it, his site is here:<BR/>http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/R. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-4796073173245492492008-07-08T11:03:00.000-07:002008-07-08T11:03:00.000-07:00...just-so stories produced daily by materialist s...<I><BR/>...just-so stories produced daily by materialist scientists<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I suppose you comment here via metaphysical means, as I doubt just-so stories make the computers of the world function.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Your question betrays a hatred of that which you do not understand: an existence that is not material.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I never thought of it as hatred, but I admit I do get R. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-63550811312631764332008-07-05T22:42:00.000-07:002008-07-05T22:42:00.000-07:00Scott, this was a throw-away line, but it caught m...Scott, this was a throw-away line, but it caught my eye:<BR/><BR/><I>A cleaner, more direct and verifiable (if not simpler) way to explain the diversity of life existed: the 'unrolling of the scroll' championed by Darwin.</I><BR/><BR/>That metaphor doesn't comport with my understanding of Darwin. While that was the meaning of "evolution" in Darwin's time and before, my understanding is that he RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-45641245861179922592008-07-05T15:00:00.000-07:002008-07-05T15:00:00.000-07:00r.moore said:"The lessoned learned from theology i...r.moore said:<BR/><I>"The lessoned learned from theology is is that its explanatory power is zero,zilch,nada."</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you meant the ability to provide material proof? The explanatory power works just as well as the barrage of just-so stories produced daily by materialist scientists. If you think theology is a materialist enterprise, you are in the wrong ballcourt.<BR/><BR/><I>"whyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-50792607002431311082008-07-04T09:33:00.000-07:002008-07-04T09:33:00.000-07:00I think you mean they simply cut through it, showi...<I><BR/>I think you mean they simply cut through it, showing that their understanding of the knot was not required to break it. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Well, we are working this metaphor to death. But I had a stronger statement in mind -- that the logic of theology was wrong -- even without scientific understanding of the natural world, the theological attempts to explain it were without a logical R. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-18807250407480158942008-07-03T19:42:00.000-07:002008-07-03T19:42:00.000-07:00But I also think this is an example of being corre...<I>But I also think this is an example of being correct without being helpful (Like Dr. Laura on the radio)</I><BR/><BR/>Owch. I'm being compared to a <B>professional</B> Pharisee! Though of course, you're right in a sense. Theology is of no help in <B>doing</B> science, and it has no (verifiable) explanatory power.<BR/><BR/>It may be of help in inspiring people to choose to study Nature, or Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-52608404645056078692008-07-03T14:46:00.000-07:002008-07-03T14:46:00.000-07:00...Similarly, theology is an intellectual traditio...<I><BR/>...Similarly, theology is an intellectual tradition that attempts to infer things from the datum available, but it does not require me to deny the evidence of my senses from the world of Nature. ...It simply makes a different set of assumptions about the starting points for drawing inferences. If these assumptions are incorrect, they may still prove useful....<BR/></I><BR/>I agree R. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.com