tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post7305148090416911359..comments2023-03-25T04:24:10.585-07:00Comments on Richard Kirk on Ethics: Musing With A Hammer: EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED -- REVIEWING THE PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUESRKirkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-53630699392529714332008-05-03T12:41:00.000-07:002008-05-03T12:41:00.000-07:00Ojala,I only mentioned Wittgenstein to point to th...Ojala,<BR/><BR/>I only mentioned Wittgenstein to point to the fact that the empiricist principle itself is not empirically verifiable. Philosophically, Wittgenstein has been called, as you doubtless know, both an agnostic (in the broadest, almost Humean, sense) and a "mystic." Most of his contributions (PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS) relate to logical structures or "language games" (for the RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-38882853129877297582008-05-03T11:32:00.000-07:002008-05-03T11:32:00.000-07:00WIttgenstein was big on agnostism. But who recalls...WIttgenstein was big on agnostism. But who recalls that the term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin? The point was not against the church only, but against Ernst Haeckels massive volume of propaganda. (He preached evolution in rented halls by the time and Huxley found out that his Monera drawings were false.)<BR/><BR/>The correspondence between Huxley and Haeckel, where Ojalanpoikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295332610492661778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-71019001825388656362008-05-03T10:24:00.000-07:002008-05-03T10:24:00.000-07:00NP,It is disconcerting that individuals make comme...NP,<BR/>It is disconcerting that individuals make comments without having read (or understood or assimilated) prior comments that address their questions. I suspect that is because folks are loath to reject or modify their beliefs, especially when it means breaking with a "group" in which they have invested substantial emotional capital. <BR/><BR/>The work of Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-53825819781377406132008-05-03T07:47:00.000-07:002008-05-03T07:47:00.000-07:00Evolutionism was politically and religiously drive...Evolutionism was politically and religiously driven. (By religion, I mean the old worship of nature akin naturalism.) Evolutionism was a revolution, and revolutions are violent. It is anachronism to mehasize the idea of selection since evolutionism was sold by much harder claims, especially constant spontaneous generation of life from mud (moneras), inheritance of acquired characteristics, Ojalanpoikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295332610492661778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-56225131612006630022008-05-02T03:52:00.000-07:002008-05-02T03:52:00.000-07:00If ID isn't about religion then what is it about?I...If ID isn't about religion then what is it about?<BR/><BR/>It certainly isn't a science. And it's not just <I>real</I> scientists who say this - even Ben Stein who presumably supports Intelligent Design says that "science leads to killing people". He probably wasn't thinking of ID when he said that.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Since you have brought up this issue, why don't you present the most compelling <INeelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156578192028778077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-20467816756152911062008-04-29T18:21:00.000-07:002008-04-29T18:21:00.000-07:00Darwinism has not grown stronger with age. The fos...Darwinism has not grown stronger with age. The fossil record that was not cooperative at the time of Darwin continues to be uncooperative. But as Harvard's Louis Agassiz was swept aside in the 19th century for failing to bow to the tidal wave of Darwinism, so also studies that don't confirm Darwinist views nowadays are also doomed to non-publication. <BR/><BR/>But even a few gurus of the science RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-22487539525917694692008-04-27T04:34:00.000-07:002008-04-27T04:34:00.000-07:00Thanks. Toda raba.Regarding the text books recycli...Thanks. Toda raba.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the text books recycling the fraudulent embryo drawings, originally it was claimed that human embryos had functioning gills when they 'climb up their family tree' in mothers womb via fish stage and amphibian stage. I have scanned some of them in here:<BR/>http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Koulukirjat.html<BR/><BR/>They are, really, the MOST recycled figures in Ojalanpoikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295332610492661778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-45262918733259459602008-04-26T21:20:00.000-07:002008-04-26T21:20:00.000-07:00To the great chagrin of the scientific and atheist...<I>To the great chagrin of the scientific and atheistic establishment, Darwinism is showing its age.</I><BR/><BR/>Evolutionary theory has, of course, become stronger with age as new discoveries are made and countless experimental results continue to confirm it. As Pope John Paul II observed, "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a maurilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148067652488456794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-23439235179147285342008-04-26T20:32:00.000-07:002008-04-26T20:32:00.000-07:00In case some weren't clear about ojalanpoika's pos...In case some weren't clear about ojalanpoika's post, his links provide interesting data about the longstanding fraud perpetrated by Haeckel and the biological establishment (via textbooks and true believer Darwinists) that humans in the womb go through the various stages of our species evolution--that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.<BR/><BR/>This was totally bogus "science"! This ongoing ruse RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-29400836449324196782008-04-26T20:09:00.000-07:002008-04-26T20:09:00.000-07:00Intelligent Design can be viewed in two ways. One ...Intelligent Design can be viewed in two ways. One can look at specific data (the DNA structure of simple organisms) and ask whether that structure is more like a "designed" system (a computer) or more like a product of random interactions, given the structures of more simple units (proteins like adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine). <BR/><BR/>Professor Marks, who deals with information theoryRKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-86033509902840696462008-04-26T03:48:00.000-07:002008-04-26T03:48:00.000-07:00Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drived not ...Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drived not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover, but also the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who raised the monstrous Haeckel in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871:<BR/>http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Ojalanpoikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01295332610492661778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-64262713620263223882008-04-26T02:03:00.000-07:002008-04-26T02:03:00.000-07:00Anyone truly interested in a way in which religion...<I>Anyone truly interested in a way in which religion and science can work together should examine the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.</I><BR/><BR/>If you like Teilhard, you might like <A HREF="http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/" REL="nofollow">this interview with John Haught</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>I am not sure why intelligent design cannot be a theory or a hypothesis maurilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148067652488456794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-17476650827935862312008-04-25T18:49:00.000-07:002008-04-25T18:49:00.000-07:00Anyone truly interested in a way in which religion...Anyone truly interested in a way in which religion and science can work together should examine the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure why intelligent design cannot be a theory or a hypothesis if Darwinism is or can be either or both.<BR/><BR/>Though I have not seen Expelled, it is hard to believe that it is less accurate than a Michael Moore film. If true, it is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-89831171512255304172008-04-25T14:40:00.000-07:002008-04-25T14:40:00.000-07:00for the sake of open dialogue about a scientific h...<I>for the sake of open dialogue about a scientific hypothesis called “Intelligent Design.”</I><BR/><BR/>Intelligent Design is not a hypothesis or a theory -- it is not science at all. It is philosophy.<BR/><BR/>There is no research program associated with ID. There is no experiment that can be done to falsify it.<BR/><BR/>That's fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with philosophy. But let's maurilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148067652488456794noreply@blogger.com