Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: oades11 If I'm not mistaken, Richard Dawkins had denied that Jefferson was a deist, saying that there was more evidence that he was atheistic rather than deistic.

Well, then I think that Dawkins is wrong - not just wrong, dead wrong. I have done considerable reading both by Jefferson and about Jefferson and he was definitely not an atheist. He had little use for organized religion, most especially for the clergy, but he was nevertheless a deist. I say this, fully aware that his belief changed during his life time. There are several quotes by Jefferson about his religion. To Adams: "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.' To Ezra Stiles Ely: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." To Miles King: "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone." And Jefferson's remark about "Nature and Nature's God" is quite typical of a deist of the time. Probably due to the influence of Adams, Jefferson actually attended a unitarian church later in his life (after one was established in Virginia).

At the moment I do not have his book with me, so I really can't be more specific.

Maybe Dawkins is like the nutcase religious people who want to claim Jefferson as a christian. No matter what, it's wrong.

[Georgia]

As a creationist I don't deny the evolution of living things.

Given the fact that nobody knows what happened all those billions of years ago, and the fact that only nothing can come from nothing, the only logical deduction is creationism.

If one suggests to me the bang theory, it had to come from "somewhere".

Who knows, it might turn out to be something like "Horton hears a Who"
(Boil that dust spec)

-Steve

[lynn]

Quote by: Georgia As a creationist I don't deny the evolution of living things. Given the fact that nobody knows what happened all those billions of years ago, and the fact that only nothing can come from nothing, the only logical deduction is creationism. If one suggests to me the bang theory, it had to come from "somewhere". Who knows, it might turn out to be something like "Horton hears a Who" (Boil that dust spec) -Steve

If you say nobody knows what happened all those years ago, then how is the only logical deduction creationism? For something to be the only answer to a question, you would need to know what happened in order to arrive at that conclusion.

[stardust]

Quote by: lynn I don't know if this subject has been brought up, but I have not seen it...Do any of the creationists on here ever take antibiotics? If so, you are taking advantage of something you do not believe in. Antibiotics are simply substances produced by bacteria that kill other bacteria. In nature, they do this through the process of evolution. When bacteria A is living in the same environment as bacteria B they compete for nutrients, space, etc. One bacteria could even be harmful to the other. So, bacteria A will eventually (through random mutations) produce a substance called an antibiotic that will inhibit the growth of the invading organism. Just be glad we picked up on this phenomenon because you don't have to understand or believe in it to benefit from it.

I don't get this. How does that proves anything?
Yes, antibiotics are substance produced by micro-organisms to kill other micro-organisms. So if a large number of bacteria are subjected to antibiotics, some of them would die, some which don't die, reproduce rapidly and make up a whole population. The reproduced bacteria are immune to antibiotics. This immunity comes about through two very simple mechanisms. Transfer of resistant genes extant in bacteria. Also, buliding of resistance, as a result of losing genetic information because of mutation. Genetic changes, however, 'don't' add any new information in bacteria's genome. What does that shows?

[Jinei]

Quote by: Georgia As a creationist I don't deny the evolution of living things. Given the fact that nobody knows what happened all those billions of years ago, and the fact that only nothing can come from nothing, the only logical deduction is creationism.

No it isn't You're using a negative argument: If A is false, B must necessarily be true. You have no evidence to support that whatsoever; only a negative argument. And we do know what happened those billions of years ago through astronomy.

If one suggests to me the bang theory, it had to come from "somewhere".

No it didn't. Read the thread called "The First Cause," here.

[oades11]

Quote by: gallo Well, then I think that Dawkins is wrong - not just wrong, dead wrong. I have done considerable reading both by Jefferson and about Jefferson and he was definitely not an atheist. He had little use for organized religion, most especially for the clergy, but he was nevertheless a deist. I say this, fully aware that his belief changed during his life time. There are several quotes by Jefferson about his religion. To Adams: "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.' To Ezra Stiles Ely: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." To Miles King: "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone." And Jefferson's remark about "Nature and Nature's God" is quite typical of a deist of the time. Probably due to the influence of Adams, Jefferson actually attended a unitarian church later in his life (after one was established in Virginia). Maybe Dawkins is like the nutcase religious people who want to claim Jefferson as a christian. No matter what, it's wrong.

If you're going to give any credence to the claims that Dawkins is a nutcase, then you must not have read any of his book to see for yourself. His reasoning is impeccable, his research erudite. I've read enough in this forum to really appreciate your input, but your certainty of Jefferson's beliefs is disconcerting when they're so contrary to someone who has, almost undoubtedly, done more research on the issue than you. I am only saying that because of how educated Richard Dawkins is. I don't know you, so don't be offended by that supposition.

You of all people should never claim some absolute certainty exists with regards to history and the beliefs of some particular individual. I sure didn't and neither did Dawkins. He spoke of probability. I still don't have his book and I won't get my hands back on it until the end of August, so I'll leave this alone and get back to you when I can quote his text verbatim on the subject of Jefferson's beliefs.

[gallo]

Quote by: oades11 If you're going to give any credence to the claims that Dawkins is a nutcase, then you must not have read any of his book to see for yourself.

Do River Out of Eden, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestor's Tale count? I didn't say that he is a nutcase, I said that he is like the nutcases who claim him as a christian. I don't know what either thinks they gain with the fantasy of claiming the "Jefferson was one of us."

His reasoning is impeccable, his research erudite.

I have no doubt that you are correct. But that doesn't mean that he is correct.

I've read enough in this forum to really appreciate your input, but your certainty of Jefferson's beliefs is disconcerting when they're so contrary to someone who has, almost undoubtedly, done more research on the issue than you.

Are you sure? The Founding Fathers, American Gospel, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, Faith and Freedom, Founding Brothers, The Creation of the American Republic (1776-1787), The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, not to mention a good deal of The Adams-Jefferson Letters as well as other letters to other people. The books mentioned above I just pulled off of my bookshelves. There were other books that I got from the Library, for example, Deism in Eighteenth Century America, The American Deists: Voices of Reason and Dissent in the Early Republic, Rational Infidels: The American Deists. All of those books were authored by respected American historians, and all of them specifically discussed the religious views of Jefferson. Some of those authors specialize in the founding of the nation. One specialized in the deism and the deists of the late 18th century. None of them gave any indication that Jefferson was either a christian or an atheist.

I am only saying that because of how educated Richard Dawkins is. I don't know you, so don't be offended by that supposition.

And Dawkins education in biology doesn't qualify him to speak about Jefferson's religion any more than my education in biology does.

You of all people should never claim some absolute certainty exists with regards to history and the beliefs of some particular individual.

But I see no need to reject the evidence that we do have from Jefferson himself.

I sure didn't and neither did Dawkins. He spoke of probability. I still don't have his book and I won't get my hands back on it until the end of August, so I'll leave this alone and get back to you when I can quote his text verbatim on the subject of Jefferson's beliefs.

It sounds likely that Dawkins allowed himself to be fooled by the trash talking that surrounded the election of 1800. Adams (a Unitarian) was represented as an orthodox christian and Jefferson was represented as an atheist. But Jefferson wrote like a deist - where do you think that "Nature and Nature's God", as well as references to "The Creator" and "Providence" came from? Further, why would an atheist use such language?

"I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust there is not a young man now living who will not die a Unitarian." -- to Benjamin Waterhouse, 26 June 1822 in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

Sounds to me that late in his life Jefferson was still a moderate Unitarian or a deist. But then, it's obvious that I haven't ever looked into the matter like Dawkins has. And what about Dawkins position makes him feel it is necessary to have Jefferson on his side?

[gallo]

Quote by: stardust I don't get this. How does that proves anything?

It seems pretty clear that you don't get it.

Genetic changes, however, 'don't' add any new information in bacteria's genome. What does that shows?

In fact, mutations are a likely to add information as they are to reduce it. Perhaps if you would be so kind as to define what you mean by "information" in a biological context. How does it relate to Shannon information. Please specify the transmitter, channel, and receiver in the increase/decrease in information of reproducing micro-organisms.

Please explain the following. Suppose there is a bacterium that undergoes a mutation that makes it immune to certain antibiotics. I would regard this as an increase in information but you claim that it is a decrease. So then, let's say that it is a decrease in information. Now suppose that a descendant of that bacterium that undergoes a mutation that is exactly the reverse of the original mutation. It is now no longer immune to antibiotics. According to you, the second mutation is also a decrease in information. So the sequence bacterium A -> mutation -> bacterium B -> mutation -> bacterium C has undergone two mutations that decreased the information, and yet, bacterium C, containing less information than bacterium A is identical to it. How's that?

[Jack]

And what about Dawkins position makes him feel it is necessary to have Jefferson on his side?

Please allow me to quote me from a recent blog entry:

Some atheists contend that a philosophy of life that doesn’t include gods alone is insufficient reason to be an atheist. A true atheist must also believe that Jesus was an allegory based on preceding models. A true atheist must also believe that it’s significant whether or not Hitler was a Catholic (and that it mattered to him). If you don’t present an argument every time you see a theist mention that Hitler was an atheist you’re not really “one of us”. And you have to mention that Einstein was at best a deist as were the founding fathers. I’m sure I’m missing a few other examples of the articles of the unfaith. It wouldn’t matter a bit if it were discovered that Adolph was a raving atheist. It wouldn’t matter in the least if Alfred was an Orthodox Catholic. I don’t consider myself an ambassador for the non-existent Christ. It’s an interesting historical mystery, but in the overall scheme of things it matters not if Jesus was a guy who got the best postmortem PR of any man in history or if he was nothing more than another god-man story based on earlier mythology. My rejection of the arguments theology offers has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed or not. Was Moses real or myth? Who cares?

FreThink » Blog Archive » My group thinks, therefore we are

I feel the same about Jefferson or anyone else. It matters not to the atheistic position which famous/infamous person was or wasn't an atheist. It doesn't even matter if Jesus existed as a man or not. None of that alters the core reality of atheism; theists can offer no support for their contention that gods exist.

[gallo]

Quote by: Jack I feel the same about Jefferson or anyone else. It matters not to the atheistic position which famous/infamous person was or wasn't an atheist. It doesn't even matter if Jesus existed as a man or not. None of that alters the core reality of atheism; theists can offer no support for their contention that gods exist.

I agree. As Dawkins himself says, it doesn't change the truth truth of the matter. However, for some reason, it does seem to matter to the christian nation crowd. They can only support the claim that this nation was founded as a christian nation, on christian principles if the Founding Fathers were christians. Some were. Jefferson was not. But on the other hand, neither was he atheist. And whatever he was, it is irrelevant to Dawkins point that God is a delusion. If Dawkins arguments are valid, then Jefferson's beliefs don't matter. Which prompted my comment that Dawkins seems to be trying to form a team, with Jefferson on his side.

I'll let you know when I finish the book.

[gallo]

Well, it seems that I was wrong in my wild guess about why Dawkins would claim that Jefferson was an atheist. I speculated that maybe Dawkins had been influenced by what was said about Jefferson during the election of 1800. Nope. Doesn't seem to be the case. But on the other hand, I haven't even seen where Dawkins asserts that Jefferson actually was an atheist. So far, according to the index, I have passed 4 of the seven places in the book where Dawkins discusses Jefferson's religious views. So far what I have seen is that Dawkins says that if the positions of the strong deists like Jefferson were to be analyzed today, they would be atheists. That's different than arguing Dawkins has shown, with impeccable reasoning, that Jefferson was an atheist. My point is that Jefferson didn't claim to be and, as far as I can tell, in light of the paltry reading about and by Jefferson that I have done, actually and quite clearly expressed a belief in a deity.

In the words of Jefferson's friend and even more militant deist who was often called an atheist, "I believe in one God and no more..."

(A religious nation dupe once told me that those words were written by John Payne. That's even worse than claiming that, "These are the times that try men's souls," is a quote from the Kingston Trio. I date myself with those references, don't I? Google the quotes if you don't know who wrote them.)

At any rate, so far, I don't see that Dawkins is actually making the argument that Jefferson was an atheist. That wasn't his point.

[oades11]

Quote by: gallo Do River Out of Eden, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestor's Tale count? I didn't say that he is a nutcase, I said that he is like the nutcases who claim him as a christian. I don't know what either thinks they gain with the fantasy of claiming the "Jefferson was one of us."

Okay. I apologize for not reading closely enough. Logically, those people don't gain anything of claiming "Jefferson was one of us.". But when you're debating in front of a bunch of people who are mixing in some degree of logical reasoning with ad hominem BS and fallacious appeals to authority, what sounds more persuasive can be helpful when trying to build credibility with ignorant people.

Quote by: gallo I have no doubt that you are correct. But that doesn't mean that he is correct. Are you sure?

You're right. Just because his reasoning is impeccable about atheism doesn't mean that he's infallible when it comes to knowing Jefferson's beliefs. However, the frequency with which someone is correct is a compelling factor in considering whether they're right about some other piece of information, viz. Jefferson. Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly what Dawkins wrote.

Quote by: Jack Please allow me to quote me from a recent blog entry: FreThink » Blog Archive » My group thinks, therefore we are I feel the same about Jefferson or anyone else. It matters not to the atheistic position which famous/infamous person was or wasn't an atheist. It doesn't even matter if Jesus existed as a man or not. None of that alters the core reality of atheism; theists can offer no support for their contention that gods exist.

I agree. I just get annoyed, mostly at myself, when I can't remember some detail of a text that I've read after being almost positive that I would remember it exactly the way it was written.

It's so frustrating to only remember the logical conclusions to various arguments, and forgetting the premises, especially when my memory of the conclusion has faded slightly.

[Jack]

That's even worse than claiming that, "These are the times that try men's souls," is a quote from the Kingston Trio.

But Pete Seeger did originate the phrase, "To everything there is a season, under heaven", right?

But when you're debating in front of a bunch of people who are mixing in some degree of logical reasoning with ad hominem BS and fallacious appeals to authority, what sounds more persuasive can be helpful when trying to build credibility with ignorant people.

I don't doubt the truth of that. Still, a good debater, whatever the topic, should stick to what's important to the debate and what they know well. Regarding the faith of the founding fathers, I would have contended that it was impossible to know the minds of those men beyond what we can discern from their writings, and even those are often ambiguous. I would then make sure to emphasize that their religious beliefs have nothing to do with the atheistic position on the existence of gods. A great many brilliant people have faith in gods. Intelligence in one area is no guarantee of intelligence in every matter. Just because the audience is gullible, there's no reason exploit that weakness with misinformation, especially when the misinformation isn't needed to support the argument.

[gallo]

Quote by: oades11 Okay. I apologize for not reading closely enough.

No need to apologize, although I appreciate it. You didn't misrepresent what I said; you misunderstood. No problem.

Logically, those people don't gain anything of claiming "Jefferson was one of us.".

And yet, they do. Somehow claiming that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were devout christians supports the belief that this is a christian nation, in spite of the fact that the evidence is quite convincing that none of the above were christians.

But when you're debating in front of a bunch of people who are mixing in some degree of logical reasoning with ad hominem BS and fallacious appeals to authority, what sounds more persuasive can be helpful when trying to build credibility with ignorant people.

Well, I can't argue with that. Reality can be really strange, and the strangeness is magnified by ignorance. Of course, when strangeness is coupled with superstition, superstition wins every time.

You're right.

I know I would like you, were we to meet. You said, "You're right," rather then "Your right."

Just because his reasoning is impeccable about atheism doesn't mean that he's infallible when it comes to knowing Jefferson's beliefs.

But, of course, impeccable reasoning based on false premise is not logically correct.

However, the frequency with which someone is correct is a compelling factor in considering whether they're right about some other piece of information, viz. Jefferson.

Of course, the frequency with which someone presents debatable hypotheses in a field in which he is an expert by education is not a barometer to the correctness of assertions outside of his field.

Of course, as an evolutionary biologist, I respect Dawkins' opinions. They are relevant to our common field, evolutionary biology. And he is more educated than I, and probably smarter to boot. No problem.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that he has researched American deism, as have I.

Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly what Dawkins wrote.

Unfortunately, at this point, I can't say exactly what he wrote since I haven't read the whole book. So far, my understanding is that Dawkins claims that Jefferson's views would be regarded as atheism today. But I don't understand how a profession in the "Creator" and "Nature and Nature's God" is atheistic.

Snip of relevant commentary that was not a response to me.

[gallo]

Stardust. Are you there?

I asked a question. Can you answer?

[stardust]

Suppose there is a bacterium that undergoes a mutation that makes it immune to certain antibiotics. I would regard this as an increase in information but you claim that it is a decrease. So then, let's say that it is a decrease in information. Now suppose that a descendant of that bacterium that undergoes a mutation that is exactly the reverse of the original mutation. It is now no longer immune to antibiotics. According to you, the second mutation is also a decrease in information. So the sequence bacterium A -> mutation -> bacterium B -> mutation -> bacterium C has undergone two mutations that decreased the information, and yet, bacterium C, containing less information than bacterium A is identical to it. How's that?

First, how would that be an increase in information? Resistance is built as a result of "losing" genetic data because of mutation.

...A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT[Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that (Evolution) cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity

Mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. The genetic changes that can illustrate the theory of evolution, should add new information to the genome. The horizontal transfer of genes, however, only spreads around genes already extant in some species.

[Jack]

Quote by: gallo I don't doubt the truth of that. In fact, I don't care. However, I resent that what I didn't say was attributed to me. How careless. And it was done by a moderator. Unacceptable! Please award yourself two infraction points for this violation of the rules. Or, as an alternative, remove two of my infraction points for this obvious misrepresentation by a moderator. I recently took a hit from a moderator who thought he was a hockey referee. He saw my retaliation. Sadly, this isn't a hockey game and that moderator didn't have the ganas to read the thread. Typical. Sorry, Jack, but it is typical of the moderation of this board. His and yours. Edit: Oh yeah. Why were you, Jack, allowed to change your name for no apparent reason, while I was not allowed to do so? What's up with that? Either you should be required to return to your original, meaningless handle or I should be allowed to adopt a new one as I desired. I tried, and some diligent moderator decided that it wasn't allowed. If it's not allowed, why could you do it? Does this seem even handed to you? Can you spell "bias"? I knew you could.

This is a topic for site ops or PM, not this thread.
Another matter; I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm unaware of the source of that "snip" or what it's referring to. I asked the forum owner, for a reason, to change my username, since mods cannot make those changes.
Take this to its appropriate venue and perhaps we can provide answers.

[rez]

Quote by: stardust Mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. The genetic changes that can illustrate the theory of evolution, should add new information to the genome. The horizontal transfer of genes, however, only spreads around genes already extant in some species.

I don't know what you are talking about, but why are "mutations needed for macroevolution"? Macroevolution IS microevolution. Small changes in the gene pool ultimately become BIG changes. I already explained this to you and you just don't care to think about it.

Why are you making this more complicated then it is?
Do you honestly think your laymen questions some how trump all the years of hardworking scientists? Since when does questioning a theory promote another theory? Try to be consistent with someone actually trying to explain something, rather then hoaxing someone.

[oades11]

Quote by: gallo I know I would like you, were we to meet. You said, "You're right," rather then "Your right."

Haha. I'd probably like you as well. The same goes for a great number of people on this site that I've come across who value coherent, grammatical sentences and logical, scientific reasoning. I try to choose my words carefully, sometimes it seems, meticulously so. Yet, every day that I use this forum I learn something new, including new ways to express ideas I'm already at least semi-familiar with (some I had no idea about!) and new 'turns of phrase' so to speak.. (I went back and read this and somehow 'turns of phrase' sound right- turns of phrases? or perhaps 'idiomatic expressions' would be better? haha)

But, of course, impeccable reasoning based on false premise is not logically correct.

Well, if it were based on a false premise it wouldn't be impeccable. Haha. Impeccable, at least how I would define it with regards to logic, is that of both validity and soundness.

Of course, the frequency with which someone presents debatable hypotheses in a field in which he is an expert by education is not a barometer to the correctness of assertions outside of his field.

Yes you're right. However, generally speaking, though Dawkins is not a professional logician (he doesn't have a degree in logic as far as I know), logical analysis seems to transcend scientific understanding; one's use of effective logic in one field of scientific inquiry makes a case that they will do use such logical standards in another. I realize though, that in this case, that type of assumption isn't useful, since history is a soft science that doesn't have a quantitative scientific understanding like much of Dawkins' other work. Then again, the employ of Occam's Razor for the idea that the origin of the universe (as we know it) came from simple beginnings, isn't a quantitative scientific analysis either- it's a heuristic maxim.

Of course, as an evolutionary biologist, I respect Dawkins' opinions. They are relevant to our common field, evolutionary biology. And he is more educated than I, and probably smarter to boot. No problem.

And I definitely know I'd enjoy your company if we were to meet. The pursuit of knowledge can never be truly unimpeded by social contraints unless the participating parties are humble and modest. And you are both.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that he has researched American deism, as have I. Unfortunately, at this point, I can't say exactly what he wrote since I haven't read the whole book. So far, my understanding is that Dawkins claims that Jefferson's views would be regarded as atheism today. But I don't understand how a profession in the "Creator" and "Nature and Nature's God" is atheistic.

I think you're right. I couldn't remember what Dawkins said specifically, and ended up pairing Jefferson with the word 'atheist' in my mind. Dawkins' idea, I'm better remembering now (I