Dear KK/Pat, I think we have had both sides of the intelligent design/evolution argument here. There is no reason for this debate to continue on ButterflyIndia unless it educates us about butterflies.
Pat, thanks for your post. Most of us have learnt about conventional view of evolution. Your last post has exposed us to a different point of view. The reader has enough input should he decide to explore that topic further. KK, I am sympathetic to the views on evolution held by scientific community who deny intelligent design/creationism but in my humble opinion you may like to educate us about some aspects of conventional ideas of evolution at a later date so that we do not engage in this hotly debated argument now. I realise that I may sound hypocritical given my publicly stated stand on discourse and constructive dissent in these forums but I do not see how we will get educated about Lepidoptera more than what has already been achieved. I think we should let this issue rest here. Warm regards, Ashwin Baindur ________________________________ From: Pat <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, 11 January, 2011 10:08:07 Subject: Re: [ButterflyIndia] kk and pat discussion Just so you are aware, these articles is FULL of misinformation. Do not trust it. Intelligent Design did NOT grow out of creationism. It is a separate effort, which grew out of the writings of a few evolution skeptics, and many of the people involved are not creationists at all. Wikipedia has a definite political, religious, and scientific bias, and while it is very good in some areas, there are plenty of people who contribute who have an agenda. Anybody in the world can contribute. Not everyone out there is honest. Not everyone does careful research. So on these topics, I urge people to read them for amusement ONLY. They will NOT give you accurate facts about anything. Knowing which statements are accurate and which are not would require a lot of diligence and research. In my opinion, it's not worth the effort. I have tried to correct articles on Wikipedia, and I get shot down when I do. William Dembski was one of the major influences on Intelligent Design. He was not particularly religious for most of his life, leading up to his departure into this area. Attending Princeton Theological Seminary would give him a rather "liberal" outlook on religion, and would in no way push him toward Christian orthodoxy. Michael Behe is another of the major influences. He wrote Darwin's Black Box. I am partway through reading that book. Behe accepts a lot of ideas from evolution, such as common descent, and the idea of ancient universe and earth (billions of years). Behe's book addresses ONLY the question of the biochemical nature of genetic information, and why this could not have arisen by chance. Intelligent Design has ONE idea, and that is that it would be impossible for the complex information in the genome to have come from anywhere other than an intelligent designer. It doesn't even address WHO is the designer. It could be God, it could be little green men from Andromeda, or someone else entirely. Intelligent Design does NOT address this question. In addition to all of that, there is NO shared leadership between Intelligent Design, and Scientific Creationism. It's a totally separate effort. While Scientific Creationists may quote Intelligent Design ideas, this does not make ID a form of creationism. The best book to read on this topic is the book Signature in the Cell, by Stephen C Meyer. It's not an easy read, but it certainly adequately covers the difficulties. I have found that Wikipedia articles about all of this are also inaccurate. This is one reason to go directly to discovery.org, because you really should let the people who actually are defining the movement inform you what it is all about. There have been things like court cases that distorted the facts, which led to erroneous rulings. This whole area is fraught with nasty politics. There is a lot of dishonesty in this area. One huge glaring problem in all of this is that science as currently practiced by most people insists on naturalism. That is to say, it does not recognize the POSSIBILITY that there could be ANY factors other than nature. This can possibly be outright false, and shutting off the possibility is simply not good reasoning. The important thing is to look for reality. Science errs strongly in the direction of logical positivism, which has no explanation for some very elementary and common concepts which we live with daily, such as what is love. What is consciousness. Where does sapience come from. And so forth. Not being able to measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take care, Pat Goltz Kunte, Krushnamegh wrote: > > > Hi all, > > For those who are lost a little bit in this exchange, there is a > detailed article on Wikipedia on creationism: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism > > Two lines or sections attracted my attention when I quickly scanned > through this article: > > “Since the 1920s, creationism in America has contested scientific > theories, such as that of evolution,[5][6] which derive from natural > observations of the universe and life.” ... > > “ID [Intelligent Design] originated as a re-branding of creation > science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling > out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools, and the > Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school > curricula.[23] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of > State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public > outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was > raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister > quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be > taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.” > > And then there is another detailed article on Intelligent Design > itself on Wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design > > Creationism fell out of favor (both public and legal) in the > mainstream science education long ago, so factions of the American > religious community has revived creationism in several forms in the > past few decades. Intelligent Design is its latest /avatar/, and the > Discovery Institute is its biggest, loudest, richest organized > proponent. Eventually, like other religion-based pushes, this will > come and go. In terms of generating new ideas and evidence, > Intelligent Design and other non-science-based movements have > historically done little. > > This was just to give background on these two movements. I will not go > into the details of their arguments and misinterpretations because > this is/ really/ going far far away from the goals and purpose of this > group. > > Cheers, > > Krushnamegh. ------------------------------------ --- Follow http://twitter.com/DiversityIndia ---Yahoo! Groups Links -- Enjoy
