EVOLUTION. The modern doctrine of evolution or
" evolving," as opposed to that of simple creation, has been
defined by Prof.
James
Sully in the 9th edition of this
encyclopaedia as a " natural history of
the cosmos including organic beings, expressed in physical terms as
a mechanical process." The following exposition of the historical
development of the doctrine is taken from Sully's article, and for
the most part is in his own words.
.^ Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ They weren't there before man appeared, so they must be the product of evolution, right?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I think that our very physical structure, with our natural desire to protect our offspring and the empathy permitted by our brain functioning, can cause us to long for connection and wholeness.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Conscious life is viewed as
conditioned by physical (organic and more especially nervous)
processes, and as evolving itself in close correlation with organic
evolution.
.^ So part of the evolution of the human mind likely was the development of moral feelings, an innate sense of right and wrong, that helped keep social order.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ No army of nutjobs was trying to get labels put on physics books stating that those were "just theories" and hence simply alternatives to creation "theory" - as is well-known by any reasonably aware person to be currently the case with evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Add to it the fact that those patterns were constructed in interaction with my environment, including what I've read about science, brains, and the theory of evolution, and I can agree.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It differs from them in being
grounded on exact and verified research.
.^ He was challenging much more than that.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Biology is based on more than evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But, of course, this is irrelevant because Ron Paul didn't respect evolution to the point of studying it and realizing that it can coexist with religious beliefs, or that there's a bit more than spit and a prayer holding the theory up.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ It explains our observations.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is true that currently, there is no fully developed and/or tested theory (that I'm aware of) that explains the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It would be
difficult to say what branches of science had done most towards the
establishment of this doctrine.
.^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It it thus as well established as any other theory in science, including the vast range of theories you would not even think to question.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Ron Paul supports bad science and could lead to (not the holocaust) but to the collapse of science in America for a generation if he dumbs down the shaky American school systems/Universities.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
), and to
the vast extension and improvement of all branches of historical
study.
History of the Idea of Evolution
The doctrine of evolution in its finished and definite form is a
modern product.
.^ At the very least he slept through biology (doesn't accept evolution) and history (thinks Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War and that it was only about slavery).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It is vain, therefore, to look for clearly defined and systematic
presentations of the idea among ancient writers. On the other hand,
nearly all systems of
philosophy have discussed the underlying
problems.
.^ And with the current context of evolution it is often used to imply origin of species.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One slight point, My intent all along has been to show that there is a colloquial meaning to evolution (which includes the origin of life) and a very hard to nail down scientific meaning which depending on how its described can mean several things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Accordingly, in tracing the antecedents of the modern philosophic
doctrine we shall have to glance at most of the principal systems
of cosmology, ancient and modern.
.^ A certain element of randomness is required for mutation to happen, so far as I understand, so if you're rejecting that part then it's probably not right to say that you accept evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I inferred from this comment and others[1], perhaps incorrectly, that a medical doctor would necessarily believe that evolution is true since he/she must have a basic understanding of biology.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Mythological Interpretation
The problem of the origin of the world was the first to engage
man's speculative activity. Nor was this line of inquiry pursued
simply as a step in the more practical problem of man's final
destiny. The order of ideas observable in children suggests the
reflection that man began to discuss the "whence " of existence
before the "whither." At first, as in the case of the child, the
problem of the
genesis of
things was conceived anthropomorphically: the question " How did
the world arise?" first shaped itself to the human mind under the
form " Who made the world?" As long as the problem was conceived in
this simple manner there was, of course, no room for the idea of a
necessary self-conditioned evolution.
Yet the first indistinct germ of such an idea appears to emerge in
combination with that of creation in some of the ancient systems of
theogony.
.^ God forbid people can actually think for themselves, with out you saying whats kosher.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But the fact that the video edited out the part where Paul said he didn't think it mattered doesn't mean one can't argue that it is important.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It may be supposed that
these crude fancies embody a dim recognition of the physical forces
and objects personified under the forms of deities, and a rude
attempt to account for their genesis as a natural process.
These first unscientific ideas of a genesis of the permanent
objects of nature took as their pattern the process of organic
reproduction and
development, and this, not only because these objects were regarded
as personalities, but also because this particular mode of becoming
would most impress these early observers.
.^ There may come a time when scientists can look at the universe and confidently say "There is no God", but we are a long way from there.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One can believe God created the earth without thinking he did it the way it is recorded in Genesis.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There are people who think that morality comes from God, and is what God says, and there are an enormous number of ways in which they think that happens, and what form it takes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Indian Philosophy
.^ Some scientists who accept the theory of evolution dispute various bits of it (like, historically, punctuated equilibrium and coevolution - but I repeat an earlier post).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Considering the question and the fact that your calling someone pathetic over a theory, I find that your quite dogmatic.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Outside of time travel or humanity conducting some extremely long-term experiments, how the theory of evolution can be better "proven?"- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ We draw logical inferences using the same kind of deductive reasoning all the time in the sciences.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Sure, evolution is more likely, because there is more tangible and verifiable evidence to support that conclusion.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Obviously Ron Paul understands that there is more to evolution than just a simple yes or no answer that Fox demanded in the Republican debate.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Obviously Ron Paul understands that there is more to evolution than just a simple yes or no answer that Fox demanded in the Republican debate.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
If, we are told,
we follow the chain of causes far enough back we reach unlimited
eternal creative nature or matter.
.^ Also things are not so clear about the lack of evidence for natural origins of life as you make it out to be.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Yet this primordial creative nature is
endowed with volition with regard to its own development.
.^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And I believe that the first when taken out of context and to an extreme (attempting to explain something like the origin of life that it can not possibly explain) leads to the second.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Also things are not so clear about the lack of evidence for natural origins of life as you make it out to be.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Early Greek Physicists
Passing by
Buddhism,
which, though teaching the periodic destruction of our world by
fire, &c., does not seek to determine the ultimate origin of
the cosmos, we come to those early Greek physical philosophers who
distinctly set themselves to eliminate the idea of divine
interference with the world by representing its origin and changes
as a natural process.
.^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
iiXrt; hence the name
.^ At the same time, some theories build up a tremendous amount of supporting evidence, building complexity as they adjust according to new experimentation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Please provide me with quotes from significant Founders from the time of the ratification of the Constitution that supports your view that the Feds can do things not specifically authorized.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
This substance is endowed with a generative or transmutative force
by virtue of which it passes into a succession of forms.
.^ Essentially, while I find his opinion laughably ignorant on this issue, he's advocating a form of government where that opinion will not matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
More especially the
cosmology of Anaximander resembles the modern doctrine of evolution
in its conception of the indeterminate (rO filr€Lpov) out of which
the particular forms of the cosmos are differentiated. Again,
Anaximander may be said to prepare the way for more modern
conceptions of material evolution by regarding his primordial
substance as eternal, and by looking on all generation as
alternating with destruction, each step of the process being of
course simply a transformation of the indestructible substance.
Once more, the notion that this indeterminate body contains
potentially in itself the fundamental contraries - hot, cold,
&c. - by the
excretion or evolution of which definite
substances were generated, is clearly a forecasting of that
antithesis of
potentiality and actuality which from
Aristotle downwards has been made the basis
of so many theories of development.
.^ Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ What is different and even Darwin needed to devote time and effort to, was the creation of life from inorganic matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Lee, I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ All scientific theories are "naturalistic" - every single one of them.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So if people are discussing scientific theories about the world, and you try to interject with decidedly non-naturalistic theories, it's not at all surprising that they would not accept them.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Neither Origin of Life or Atheism is a part of the scientific theory of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
For the rest, his theory is chiefly
important as emphasizing the vital character of the original
substance. The primordial air is conceived as animated. Anaximenes
seems to have inclined to a view of cosmic evolution as throughout
involving a quasi-spiritual factor.
.^ Lee, I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Diogenes made this conception of a vital and intelligent air the
ground of a teleological view of climatic and atmospheric
phenomena. It is noteworthy that he sought to establish the
identity of organic and inorganic matter by help of the facts of
vegetal and animal
nutrition. Diogenes distinctly taught that
the world is of finite duration, and will be renewed out of the
primitive substance.
Heraclitus again
deserves a prominent place in a history of the idea of evolution.
Heraclitus conceives of the incessant process of
flux in which all things are involved as
consisting of two sides or moments - generation and decay - which
are regarded as a confluence of opposite streams.
.^ Well, aletoledo, you certainly have some strong convictions yourself on U.S. intervention in Iraq, the non-existence of things we might not have been in a position to observe, and as you make quite clear, political structures.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG. .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But this thread is not about the existence of non-existence of God - nor is evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I have devoted a lot of time to understanding evolutionry science, and while I find Paul's evolution comments a bit troubling, I think people on this board are missing a major point.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Until then, Paul's denial of evolution tells us that, at least in some ways, he still is too tied into some bullshit to honestly move much of anything forward.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I find the comments here expressing dismay at how an M.D. could possibly deny evolution, amusing.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ BoMar said: "Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Einfiedocles
.^ All these things are part of our physical bodies.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Some people would prefer to think of evolution as a fact, and thats their right as long as they don't insist upon others forming the same postulate as they do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We can't have a clue whether or not the accummulated-millions-of-years-theory of evolution isn't just the 7-day time period in which God created all things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Further, by maintaining that the
elements are continually being combined and separated by the two
forces love and hatred, which appear to represent in a figurative
way the physical forces of attraction and repulsion, Empedocles may
be said to have made a considerable advance in the construction of
the idea of evolution as a strictly mechanical process.
.^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ For that matter, he may well understand that already-- that may be why he didn't raise his hand to say that he disagreed with evolution, but made these nebulous statements later about the creator and origins.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Im sorry if I stick to single points and refuse to get drawn out into your rambling state of oblivion, but debating the whole theory of evolution is insane.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Because they recognize the link between philosophical and scientific naturalism that you are trying to deny.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Because according to the evolutionary theory itself, any behavior is a dialectical product of chance and biochemical processes, not a logical action by a logically thinking free human being.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
He
further recognizes a progress in the production of
vegetable and animal forms,
though this part of his theory is essentially crude and
unscientific.
.^ Lee, I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Or will you depend on modern medicine, which has been developed using the knowledge of evolution, to make him better?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The supposition that sensation
thus rests on a material process of absorption from external bodies
naturally led up to the idea that plants and even inorganic
subtances are precipient, and so to an indistinct recognition of
organic life as a scale of intelligence.
Atorists.
In
the theory of Atomism taught by Leucippus and Democritus we have the basis of the modern
mechanical conceptions of cosmic evolution. .^ Meanwhile, in the real world, I find that I agree with Ron Paul 98% of the time, while agreeing with the other Democratic and Republican candidates only 2% of the time.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I believe that Christ came to redeem the world through love that connects and joins together our broken connections with God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Like I said in an earlier comment, the only reason I care is that along with his talk about the Civil War it shows me that he might have slept through high school.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The force which brings the atoms
together in the forms of objects is inherent in the elements, and
all their motions are necessary.
The origin of things, which is also their substance, is thus laid
in the simplest and most homogeneous elements or principles. The
real world thus arising consists only of diverse combinations of
atoms, having the properties of magnitude, figure, weight and
hardness, all other qualities being relative only to the sentient
organism. The problem of the genesis of mind is practically solved
by identifying the soul, 1 This is brought out by F. Lassalle,
Die Philosophie Herakleitos, p. 126.
.^ The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Then move on to the differences between the races and explain where these differences come from, considering God only made one man and one woman to start the whole human race?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Aristotle
Aristotle is much nearer a conception of evolution than his
master
Plato.
.^ Evolution means the theory of common descent (more properly a set of theories, but that's not relevant to this discussion).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He doesn't come out and say that there's no evolutionary process at work in the world he believes to have been created by "the creator [he] know[s]."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Also look at the FURTHER READINGS, where the major creationist website also agrees that your whole 'fact/theory' discussion is nothing but a red herring: What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Everyone of you that believes in "evolution theory" what means "survive of the fittest" has to accept, that a strong guy comes along and knocks you out.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Thus even his idea
of the relation of the divine activity to the world shows a
tendency to a pantheistic notion of a divine thought which
gradually realizes itself in the process of becoming.
.^ If you read my posts, you will see that I am not "convinced that the way evolution built us, and the materials it used, should have some comment on the way that it's appropriate for us to behave."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And if you could describe the process by which evolution becomes fact, that'd be ever so nice, but I'm not seeing it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
To Aristotle the whole of nature is
instinct with a vital impulse
towards some higher manifestation. Organic life presents itself to
him as a progressive scale of complexity determined by its final
end, namely, man.' In some respects Aristotle approaches the modern
view of evolution.
.^ When in human history has spontaneous generation ever been observed?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Aristotle's teleological conception of organic evolution often
approaches modern mechanical conceptions.
.^ The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
So, too, in his psychology he speaks of
the several degrees of mind as arising according to a progressive
necessity. 3 In his view of touch and taste, as the two fundamental
and essential senses, he may remind one of
Herbert
Spencer's doctrine.
At the same time Aristotle precludes the idea of a natural
development of the mental series by the supposition that man
contains, over and above a natural finite soul inseparable from the
body, a substantial and eternal principle (voi) which enters into
the individual from without. Aristotle's brief suggestions respect
ing the origin of society and governments in the Politics
show a leaning to a naturalistic interpretation of human history as
a development conditioned by growing necessities.
Strato
Of Aristotle's immediate successors one deserves to be noticed
here, namely, Strato of
Lampsacus, who developed his master's
cosmology into a system of
naturalism. Strato appears to reject
Aristotle's idea of an original source of movement and life
extraneous to the world in favour of an immanent principle.
.^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It completely matters who is is talking to here, as that affects how he will use the word (though, in all likelihood, he will use the word the same way in other circumstances, as he is not a specialist).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Something created life from inorganic matter or nothing (I've looked long and hard at all explanations.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In the cosmology of the Stoics we have the germ of a monistic
and pantheistic conception of evolution.
.^ Try as the ID advocates might to turn themselves into martyrs, the facts just don't back it up.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Also things are not so clear about the lack of evidence for natural origins of life as you make it out to be.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ They all want to take us back to the middle ages, at least when it comes to "how we got here" questions.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ There may come a time when scientists can look at the universe and confidently say "There is no God", but we are a long way from there.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Science is merely a descriptive tool to analyze the real world, and because we can't know everything that exists in the real world, we can't definitively say that this or that theory is necessarily true.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The formative principle or
force of the world is said to contain the several rational germinal
forms of things.
Individual things are supposed to arise out of the original being,
as animals and plants out of seeds. Individual souls are an efflux
from the all-compassing world-soul.
.^ I think God expects us to use that reason to understand as much as we can of the physical world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I believe that Christ came to redeem the world through love that connects and joins together our broken connections with God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
2 See this well brought out in G. H. Lewes's Aristotle, p.
187. Grote calls attention to the contrast between Plato's and
Aristotle's way of conceiving the gradations of mind
(Aristotle, ii. 171).
identical ones, all of which are destined to be burnt up and
destroyed.
The Epicurean
Lucretius. - The
Epicureans differed from the Stoics by adopting a purely
mechanical view of the worldprocess. .^ That said one can not believe in Darwinian evolution with out the origin of life that was put forward by Darwin.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We see the patterns in the fossil record and we infer from them that they were produced by the splitting off of one species from another.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He, as billions of other human beings believe they are somehow greater than the sum of material processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Our
world is but one of an infinite number of others, and all the
harmonies and adaptations of the universe are regarded as a special
case of the infinite possibilities of mechanical events.
Lucretius regards the primitive atoms (first beginnings or first
bodies) as seeds out of which individual things are developed. All
living and sentient things are formed out of insentient atoms (e.g.
worms spring out of dung). The
peculiarity of organic and sentient bodies is due to the minuteness
and shape of their particles, and to their special motions and
combinations. So, too, mind consists but of extremely fine
particles of matter, and dissolves into air when the body dies.
Lucretius traces, in the fifth book of his poem, the progressive
genesis of vegetal and animal forms out of the motherearth.
.^ Everyone of you that believes in "evolution theory" what means "survive of the fittest" has to accept, that a strong guy comes along and knocks you out.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "The Man" (read, Saviour) is missing the point that it has to be about ideas, (and not ideals) and which ideas and plans and organizations are most survival-promoting for YOU in this real world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Science is merely a descriptive tool to analyze the real world, and because we can't know everything that exists in the real world, we can't definitively say that this or that theory is necessarily true.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Lucretius touches on the development of
man out of a primitive, hardy, beast-like condition.
.^ The only reason you complain about naturalism when it comes to evolution and not when it comes to the germ theory of disease is because this particular theory disagrees with your religious beliefs.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Lucretius thus recognizes the whole range of
existence to which the doctrine of evolution may be applied.
Neoplatonists
.^ Truth is the first order of business, and it's more beautiful than libertarianism dysfunctionally marketed, less likely implemented.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Far more important than being "enslaved" to government (is someone forcing your citizenship, BTW?) is the state of enslavement that American culture is in to dishonesty and bullshit.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Its purpose was to make Christianity more competitive with contemporary Pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured their founder having being born of a virgin."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Are there no crackpot ideas in the world?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He doesn't come out and say that there's no evolutionary process at work in the world he believes to have been created by "the creator [he] know[s]."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In
Proclus we find this conception
of an emanation of the world out of the Deity, or the absolute,
made more exact, the process being regarded as threefold-0)
persistence of cause in effect, (2) the departure of effect from
cause, and (3) the tendency of effect to revert to its cause.
The Fathers
.^ It is not surprising that orthodox Christianity adopted and maintained this doctrine as it made it easier for Greeks and Romans to assimilate their pagan beliefs of Gods and humans mating into Christianity.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The common idea of the origin of
things is that of an absolute creation of matter and mind alike.
The course of human history is regarded by those writers who are
most concerned to refute Judaism as a progressive divine education.
Among the Gnostics we meet with the hypothesis of emanation, as,
for example, in the curious cosmic theory of
Valentinus.
Middle Age
Early Schoolmen. -
.^ So if you ever find the solution, it surely will be one of those speculations that we've heard in the past.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution has a long track record of making such successful predictions, including most recently the finding of the Tiktaalik fossil precisely where it was predicted (the type of sediments it would be found in) and when it was predicted (the age of those sediments).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ What you believe in your personal time is of no concern to me, but when you're engaging in scientific inquiry, sorry, naturalism is the only way.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "The Man" (read, Saviour) is missing the point that it has to be about ideas, (and not ideals) and which ideas and plans and organizations are most survival-promoting for YOU in this real world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That said, the policies of today's Social Democratic parties over most of the world -- and this is what, I suppose, most academics support -- would, for the most part, not even be recognized as socialism by 19th-century socialists.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In
certain writers, however, there appears a more elaborate
transformation of the doctrine of creation into a system of
emanation.
According to
John Scotus Erigena, the nothing out
of which the world is created is the divine essence.
.^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We can't have a clue whether or not the accummulated-millions-of-years-theory of evolution isn't just the 7-day time period in which God created all things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
universal to the particular is of course conceived as a descent or
degradation. A similar doctrine of emanation is to be found in the
writings of Bernhard of
Chartres, who conceives the process of the
unfolding of the world as a movement in a circle from the most
general to the individual, and from this back to the most general.
This movement is said to go forth from God to the animated
heaven, stars, visible world and
man, which represent decreasing degrees of
cognition.
Arab Philosophers
Elaborate doctrines of emanation, largely based on Neoplatonic
ideas, are also propounded by some of the Arabic philosophers, as
by
Farabi and
Avicenna. The leading thought
is that of a descending series of intelligences, each emanating
from its predecessor, and having its appropriate region in the
universe.
Jewish Philosophy
In the Jewish speculations of the middle ages may be found
curious forms of the doctrine of emanations uniting the Biblical
idea of creation with elements drawn from the Persians and the
Greeks.
.^ Secondly as Ive pointed out, the current context of that statement in the world we live in implicitly refers to the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Among the philosophic
Jews, the Spanish Avicebron, in his
Fons
Vitae, expounds a curious doctrine of emanation.
.^ The whole "faith" thing between God and man in the Bible is relational, then: God says, "You can rely on Me.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We can't have a clue whether or not the accummulated-millions-of-years-theory of evolution isn't just the 7-day time period in which God created all things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Maybe it is because the Catholic Church has abandoned their "God of the Gaps" approach since things worked out so badly with Galileo?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Maybe its only a matter of time.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ BoMar said: "Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Matter is the one universal substance, body and mind being merely
specifications of this.
.^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Later Scholastics
.^ The Bible itself tells us that God made our bodies, not directly out of nothing, but out of dirt.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He doesn't come out and say that there's no evolutionary process at work in the world he believes to have been created by "the creator [he] know[s]."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The original substance of the world is
the
materia primo-prima, which is the immediate creation
of the Deity. This serves Duns Scotus as the most universal basis
of existence, all angels having material bodies.
.^ AGENCIES, (oh dear, how do THOSE things figure into the constitution?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But when science steps into the political ring to "advise" (pressure) governments into particular policies, then it matters.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ You know, the whole "expanding universe" thing.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It
is also described as a bifurcation of two twigs, mental and bodily
creation out of a common root. One might almost say that Duns
Scotus recognizes the principle of a gradual physical evolution,
only that he chooses to represent the mechanism by which the
process is brought about by means of
quaint scholastic
fictions.
Revival of Learning
The period of the revival of learning, which was also that of a
renewed study of nature, is marked by a considerable amount of
speculation respecting the origin of the universe. In some of these
we see a return to Greek theories, though the influence of physical
discoveries, more especially those of
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, is
distinctly traceable.
Telesio
An example of a return to early Greek speculation is to be met
with in
Bernardino Telesio. By this writer
the world is explained as a product of three principles - dead
matter, and two active forces, heat and cold. Terrestrial things
arise through a confluence of heat, which issues from the heavens,
and cold, which comes from the earth. Both principles have
sensibility, and thus all products of their collision are sentient,
that is, feel pleasure and
pain.
.^ The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
1 Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe, p. 225.
.^ Evolution is a scientific theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Way to equate people who accept evolution as a theory with fanatical adherents.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ No one here has claimed that evolution is a fact.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I believe it is only a matter of time until someone creates a primitive life form in the lab.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I don't ask God to speed up evolution to fit all the "kinds" of animals into the ark and get a tiger from a kitty cat in 4000 years.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It completely matters who is is talking to here, as that affects how he will use the word (though, in all likelihood, he will use the word the same way in other circumstances, as he is not a specialist).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Something created life from inorganic matter or nothing (I've looked long and hard at all explanations.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The elementary parts of existence are the
minima,
or monads, which are at once material and mental. On their material
side they are not absolutely unextended, but spherical.
.^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The real world is infinitely complex (bounded but infinite), and one good counterexample will topple any theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
His theory of evolution is essentially pantheistic, and he
does not employ his hypothesis of monads in order to work out a
more mechanical conception.
Campanella
A word must be given to one of Bruno's contemporary compatriots,
namely Campanella, who gave poetic expression to that system of
universal vitalism which Bruno developed.
.^ From here on out, a Christian relies on revelation -- as we must, the supernatural is inexplicable (in its totality) by the laws of the natural world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But the fact that the video edited out the part where Paul said he didn't think it mattered doesn't mean one can't argue that it is important.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ NO ONE, I repeat no one, has ever succeeded in generating Life out of the pure inorganic elements from the periodic tables.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Boehme. -
.^ He is referring to the scientific theory here.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Way to equate people who accept evolution as a theory with fanatical adherents.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There are people who think that morality comes from God, and is what God says, and there are an enormous number of ways in which they think that happens, and what form it takes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The influence of an advancing study of nature, which was
stimulated if not guided by Bacon's writings, is seen in the more
careful doctrines of
materialism worked out almost
simultaneously by Hobbes and Gassendi.
.^ It is equally ridiculous, however, to say that evolution is no longer a theory but a law.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He was speculating - this was not a hypothesis, it was not part of the Theory of Evolution - it was speculation, labeled as such.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ You might say that our conscious thoughts, therefore, are an emergent property of our brain.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ LOL. Yet another person pointing out that the clip is edited.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I didn't yet point out the fallacies of your argument, because you haven't yet provided any argument.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
25,
sect.
.^ Does it say "There is no God?"- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Only the professionally ignorant would fail to recognize thh pointlessness of saying there's no "absolute" proof of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is no 100% proof in God's existence either ...- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Neither Origin of Life or Atheism is a part of the scientific theory of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is, though most likely to be true, the THEORY of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The claim made by some that "it just won't work in the contemporary world" is a speculative hypothesis (in keeping with other parts of this blog, not a theory!- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So, some 'smartest guy in the world' has a "theory of everything," makes his living as a "weight-lifting bouncer," and promotes 'intelligent design.'- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Theory according to my links states To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
These atoms, which are the seeds of all things, are,
however, not eternal but created by God. Gassendi distinctly argues
against the existence of a world-soul or a principle of life in
nature.
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's a debate in the philosophy of biology about whether anything in evolutionary theory can be described as law-like, but evolution itself isn't the sort of concept that can be described as a law.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But that aside now that we've stated neither one of us has ever claimed evolution to be a fact, how does it matter if someone accepts something that may or not be true.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
His doctrine
that consciousness is confined to man, the lower animals being
unconscious machines (
automata), excludes all idea of a
progressive development of mind.
.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ All theists, all Christians, all staunch defenders of the theory of evolution, yet just as staunch defenders of methodological naturalism.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Theory according to my links states To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The claim made by some that "it just won't work in the contemporary world" is a speculative hypothesis (in keeping with other parts of this blog, not a theory!- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Ron Paul believes that "God created the heavens and the earth" regardless of how he did it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One can believe God created the earth without thinking he did it the way it is recorded in Genesis.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It might just be that we have evolved the capacity for and necessity of living in social groups, and morality arose merely out of that necessity-- and keeps arising, with every successive generation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "In common parlance it (TOE) means a naturalistic explanation of the current world we see around us as well as a naturalistic origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Dawkins is exhibit A. He insists on a naturalistic explanation for the origins of life as well as a naturalistic explanation for evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In common parlance it means a naturalistic explanation of the current world we see around us as well as a naturalistic origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In Spinoza's pantheistic theory of the world, which regards
thought and extension as but two sides of one substance, the
problem of becoming is submerged in that of being.
.^ I'm not sure how you can globally reject all of evolutionary theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Law and Theory are separate things - Laws describe, Theories explain.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Remember, facts are things that we observe; theories explain facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
He recognizes
gradations of things according to the degree of complexity of their
movements and that of their conceptions.
.^ It dismisses all historical sciences...and would naturally exclude criminal forensics (which differs only in detail, not in principle).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Then move on to the differences between the races and explain where these differences come from, considering God only made one man and one woman to start the whole human race?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
So far Spinoza approaches the conception of
evolution.
.^ BoMar said: "Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ This may come as a surprise to y'all, but providing quality care to human beings suffering from any disease I can think of is not predicated on the belief that evolution is true.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We can't have a clue whether or not the accummulated-millions-of-years-theory of evolution isn't just the 7-day time period in which God created all things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Sir F.
Pollock has taken pains to show
how nearly Spinoza approaches certain ideas contained in the modern
doctrine of evolution, as for example that of sell-preservation as
the determining force in things.
Locke
In Locke we find, with a retention of certain antievolutionist
ideas, a marked tendency to this mode of viewing the world.
.^ What is different and even Darwin needed to devote time and effort to, was the creation of life from inorganic matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That's all accepting evolution rules out, religiously (and one would think the fossil record would have done that even without evolution).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It it thus as well established as any other theory in science, including the vast range of theories you would not even think to question.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The first eternal being is thus spiritual or " cogitative,"
and contains in itself all the perfections that can ever after
exist. He repeatedly insists on the impossibility of senseless
matter putting on sense.'
.^ Biology is based on more than evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But, of course, this is irrelevant because Ron Paul didn't respect evolution to the point of studying it and realizing that it can coexist with religious beliefs, or that there's a bit more than spit and a prayer holding the theory up.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Also, if you're going to quote more than one person at a time when you're posting, you need to make it clear who you're quoting, and when.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ First of all, you are confusing artifical selection and natural selection with evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If Darwin's theory only spoke of the genetic modifications in life it would have been laughed at by the average English farmer who's ancestors have been experts in the art of evolution for centuries."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Again he works
towards the same end in his celebrated refutation of the scholastic
theory of real specific essences.
.^ We see the patterns in the fossil record and we infer from them that they were produced by the splitting off of one species from another.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ You've never tried to show where my argument is wrong--you just claim that you have some special knowledge that it's wrong.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG. .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
2
This idea of the continuity of species is developed more fully in a
remarkable passage (
Essay, bk. iii. ch. vi. § 12), where
he is arguing in favour of the hypothesis, afterwards elaborated by
Leibnitz, of a graduated
series of minds (species of spirits) from the Deity down to the
lowest animal intelligence.
.^ One slight point, My intent all along has been to show that there is a colloquial meaning to evolution (which includes the origin of life) and a very hard to nail down scientific meaning which depending on how its described can mean several things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As far as I can tell as an outsider to US politics this doesn't make any significant difference since Mr Paul was never going to get a serious number of votes anyway.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Several commenters (Julia and Gretchen, eg) went most of the way down this path but for one reason or another stopped short along the way.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Thus man approaches the beasts, and the animal kingdom is nearly
joined with the vegetable, and so on down to the lowest and " most
inorganical parts of matter."
Finally, it is to be observed that Locke had a singularly clear
view of organic arrangements (which of course he explained
according to a theistic teleology) as an
adaptation to the circumstances of the
environment or to " the neighbourhood of the bodies that surround
us." Thus he suggests that man has not eyes of a microscopic
delicacy, because he would receive no great advantage from such
acute organs, since though adding indefinitely to his speculative
knowledge of the physical world they would 1 Yet he leaves open the
question whether the Deity has annexed thought to matter as a
faculty, or whether it rests on a distinct spiritual principle.
Locke half playfully touches on certain monsters, with respect
to which it is difficult to determine whether they
ought to be called men. (Essay, book iii. ch. vi. sect.
26, 27.) not practically benefit their possessor (e.g. by enabling
him to avoid things at a convenient distance).3 Idea of
Progress in History. - Before leaving the 17th century we must
just refer to the writers who laid the foundations of the
essentially modern conception of human history as a gradual upward
progress.
.^ There are centuries of jurisprudence to account for, and, if they or I were to have our way, overcome, and if they are going to accept the idea of legal precedent at all, they will have to look into the legal arguments behind our interpretations.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ According to evolutionary theory there was a common ancestor of apes and men, at which point the lines split, one evolving into apes and one evolving into men.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Others have already pointed out that there are many Christians who support (and have made great contributions to) evolutionary theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The former
distinctly argues against the idea of a deterioration of man in the
past.
.^ It dismisses all historical sciences...and would naturally exclude criminal forensics (which differs only in detail, not in principle).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Vertical Evolution rest upon the idea that life can come from nothing.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
English Writers of the 28th Centur
Hume. - The
theological discussions which make up so large a
part of the English speculation of the 18th century cannot detain
us here. .^ There's also a vanishingly small chance that 9/11 was an inside job, an alternative theory to the usual one that Al Qaeda and OBL did it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's a very fundamental conflict between those who believe the government has all powers not explicitly denied it, and those who believe the government has no powers not explicitly granted it, and since the Constitution itself does not clearly resolve the issue, either side is a reasonable claim, not a bullshit one.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
We refer to David Hume. In his Dialogues concerning
Natural Religion
he puts forward tentatively, in the person of
one of his interlocutors, the ancient hypothesis that since the
world resembles an animal or vegetal organism rather than a
machine, it might more easily be accounted for by a process of
generation than by an act of creation.
Later on he develops the materialistic view of Epicurus, only
modifying it so far as to conceive of matter as finite.
.^ And the fact that he seems to be the only honest politician who doesn't have to consult polls, his staff, or perform a political cost-benefit analysis of every position he takes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There are people who think that morality comes from God, and is what God says, and there are an enormous number of ways in which they think that happens, and what form it takes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One will never have 100% belief in a candidate's positions, but this is trivial....He still is the only honest contender, no wonder he is dissected (unlike EVERY other candidate) .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
French Writers of the 18th Century
Let us now pass to the French writers of the 18th century. Here
we are first struck by th ° results of advancing physical
speculation in their bearing on the conception of the world.
.^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It explains the evidence very well and it has consistently predicted the nature of new evidence before it has come to light.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Maupertuis,
who, together with Voltaire, introduced the new idea of the
universe as based on Newton's discoveries, sought to account for
the origin of organic things by the hypothesis of sentient atoms.
.^ Humans, being the only species that can consider such things on a rational level rather than acting out of instinct, can make rational choices about such things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Diderot, too, in his varied intellectual activity, found time to
speculate on the genesis of sensation and thought out of a
combination of matter endowed with an elementary kind of sentience.
.^ Also things are not so clear about the lack of evidence for natural origins of life as you make it out to be.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Maybe it is because the Catholic Church has abandoned their "God of the Gaps" approach since things worked out so badly with Galileo?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
He sought
(
L'Homme-machine) to connect man in his original condition
with the lower animals, and emphasized (
L'Homme-plante)
the essential unity of plan of all living things. Helvetius, in his
work on man, referred all differences between our species and the
lower animals to certain peculiarities of organization, and so
prepared the way for a conception of human development out of lower
forms as a process of physical evolution.
.^ Try to inject God into scientific debate, and you're going to be viewed in much the same way as if you barged into church shouting about organic chemistry.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Do tell what evolutionary biologist uses the terms "horizontal evolution and vertical evolution" in the way you suggest here?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If you read my posts, you will see that I am not "convinced that the way evolution built us, and the materials it used, should have some comment on the way that it's appropriate for us to behave."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
ii. ch. vii. sect. 4).
4 Philosophy of History (1893), p. 103, where an
interesting sketch of the growth of the idea of progress is to be
found.
scale from the simple to the complex.
.^ What matters to me is can we maintain our scientific and technological progress against countries that are catching up in some ways and surpassing us in others.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The common ancestor is neither modern ape nor modern man (whether it's classifiably in the same genus as apes is a matter for taxonomists).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The process is conceived as an infinite series of
variations or specifications of one primitive and common type.
.^ Even if some version of abiogenesis via natural means were established beyond all doubt, religion still could coexist with it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That the existence of a Creator is self evident is why the default assumption of man throughout all of recorded history has been theistic.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The formative force in this process of evolution (or "
metamorphosis ") is
conceived as an intellectual principle (
idee generatrice).
Robinet thus laid the foundation of that view of the world as
wholly vital, and as a progressive unfolding of a spiritual
formative principle, which was afterwards worked out by Schelling.
.^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So part of the evolution of the human mind likely was the development of moral feelings, an innate sense of right and wrong, that helped keep social order.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ It means that you uncritically accept the whole naturalistic, materialistic, world view."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Are you going to provide some examples of these "accepted" processes that don't "consistently follow such laws"?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Mental operations are identified with physical movements, the three
conditions of physical movement, inertia, attraction and repulsion,
being in the moral world self-love, love and hate.
He left open the question whether the capability of sensation
belongs to all matter, or is confined to the combinations of
certain materials. He looked on the actions of the individual
organism and of society as determined by the needs of
self-preservation. He conceived of man as a product of nature that
had gradually developed itself from a low condition, though he
relinquished the problem of the exact mode of his first genesis and
advance as not soluble by data of experience. Holbach thus worked
out the basis of a rigorously materialistic conception of
evolution.
The question of human development which Holbach touched on was one
which occupied many minds both in and out of
France during the 18th century, and more
especially towards its close.
.^ When Dr. Paul said he rejected evolution he was speaking in the context of rejecting evolutionary naturalism, or the theory that Nature and Nature alone has been the only thing ever at work in biological history.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
German Writers of the 18th Centur
Leibnitz. -
.^ Saying you don't accept it "as a theory" when a theory is what it is - in the scientific sense, not in the vernacular sense - is to say you don't accept evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Red Phillips MD: "In modern terms, as this site amply illustrates, evolution does not just mean a theory of common descent, survival of the fittest, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Darwin is a package, in modern context the theory of evolution includes all his works.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ And while 'intelligent design' is a catch-phrase co-opted by Creationists and monotheists, I would bet most scientists have a spiritual side and do not doubt the tremendously mysterious aspects of time and space.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Was it really such a positive thing to get most of the population off the farm?"- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If bacteria did not evolve, then there would be no such thing as MRSA and other drug resistant bugs.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Yet by his very
mode of solving the problem he is led on to consider the nature of
the world-process.
.^ To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Theory according to my links states To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The real world is infinitely complex (bounded but infinite), and one good counterexample will topple any theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
He prepares
the way, too, for a doctrine of evolution by his monistic idea of
the substantial similarity of all things, inorganic and organic,
bodily and spiritual, and still more by his conception of a perfect
gradation of existence from the lowest " inanimate " objects, whose
essential activity is confused representation, up to the highest
organized beingman - with his clear intelligence.'
Turning now to Leibnitz's conception of the world as a process, we
see first that he supplies, in his notion of the underlying reality
as force which is represented as spiritual (
quelque chose
d'analogique au sentiment et a Tappan), both a mechanical and
a teleological explanation of its order.
.^ Biology is based on more than evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If it makes them think that life is meaningless or amoral then I think they are taking, like some engineers might, to an overly more rigid and ordered view of life than evolution allows for.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Obviously Ron Paul understands that there is more to evolution than just a simple yes or no answer that Fox demanded in the Republican debate.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It is the following out of an inherent tendency or
impulse to a series of changes, all of which were virtually
pre-existent, and this process cannot be interfered with from
without.
.^ IMO , we will inevitably "make up" different things and just have to accommodate those differences.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Apparently, Gretchen, you don't read my posts, and therefore you can't see that my argument is not based on physical make up, but on what you believe about the origin of man.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
development.
.^ From a human standpoint, its basically a humble perspective, and so out of step with liberal, rational, scientific orthodoxy which says through empiral data humans can decipher anything.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I'd also like to point out that BoMar saying (paraphrasing): "You cannot prove it now, and I don't believe it can be proven in the future.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Each
monad is an original independent being, and is determined to take
this particular point in the universe, this place in the scale of
beings.
.^ The scientific debate is over how evolution explains little pockets of evidence that don't fit with known mechanisms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Here's the definition of a "scientific theory" that demonstrates how it differs from "facts", and in fact takes precedent over it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But for people to spout about how cant he see that there is evolution ignores the current context of that question and the implicit meaning behind it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ To believe that before the Big Bang, time, space, and matter were non existent is a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There are and have been several competing theories of gravitation - curvature of space-time, graviton exchange, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Leibnitz, in fact, presents to us an infinite system of perfectly
distinct though parallel developments, which on their mental side
assume the aspect of a scale, not through any mutual action, but
solely through the determination of the Deity. Even this idea,
however, is incomplete, for Leibnitz fails to explain the physical
aspect of development.
.^ In that case "facts" are only valid in an axiomatic framework, i.e., "the set of integers forms a group under multiplication", which is only true given definitions of sets, numbers, and algebraic structures.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Yet Leibnitz prepared the way for
a new conception of organic evolution.
.^ All theists, all Christians, all staunch defenders of the theory of evolution, yet just as staunch defenders of methodological naturalism.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ (They also accept miracles, with the understanding that they represent temporary suspension of those natural laws that consistently apply at all other times.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ All these things are part of our physical bodies.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
-
.^ When in human history has spontaneous generation ever been observed?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Isn't that the process that brought us from amoebas to monkeys and to humans?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ You're falsely bundling the two ideas and indirectly bashing evolution while you're at it, and it doesn't make your stance sound any less incoherent than Paul's.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Herder
Herder,
on the other hand, Lessing's contemporary,. treated
the subject of man's development in a thoroughly naturalistic
spirit. In his Ideen zur Philosophic der Geschichte,
Herder adopts Leibnitz's idea of a graduated scale of beings,
at the same time conceiving of the lower stages as the conditions,
of the higher. .^ "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could have ever been present.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ After all, if you have a sick child, are you going to depend only on the supernatural, such as prayer, to make him/her better?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The one thing you can say about a Paul presidency is that he wouldn't involve the state with either science or religion, whatever his personal views on those matters.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He might veto one specific kind of law in favor of another kind that does the same thing but in accordance with his Right-wing Constitutionalist viewpoint.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The development
of man is explained in connexion with that of the earth, and in
relation to climatic variations, &c.
Man's mental faculties are viewed as related to his organization,
and as developed under the pressure of the necessities of life.3
Kant. -
.^ Many, if not most, of the established Christian churches explicitly support honest science, and evolution, in their doctrines.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is still ample room in the study of human evolution for many interpretations, including a faith-based one that assumes the involvement of a Creator.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "The Man" (read, Saviour) is missing the point that it has to be about ideas, (and not ideals) and which ideas and plans and organizations are most survival-promoting for YOU in this real world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution likewise can be studied by the evidence left behind, but there every single living thing (and many non-living things as well) bears the stamps of what happened in the past.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There was obviously a need to pursue them in the first place, and eventually the market itself would have filled that need.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Kant, like Leibnitz, seeks to reconcile the
mechanical and teleological views of nature, only he assigns to
these different spheres. The order of the inorganic world is
explained by properly physical causes.
.^ But within the prescribed boundaries that the Law exists it is by far more certain then a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is never "proven", it can only be supplanted by a more complete theory which does a better job of explaining the data.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Theories don't become laws any more than they become facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The worlds, or
systems of worlds, which fill infinite space are continually being
formed and destroyed.
Chaos
passes by a process of evolution into a cosmos, and this again into
chaos. So far as the evolution of the solar system is concerned,
Kant held these mechanical causes as adequate.
.^ It completely matters who is is talking to here, as that affects how he will use the word (though, in all likelihood, he will use the word the same way in other circumstances, as he is not a specialist).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ What is different and even Darwin needed to devote time and effort to, was the creation of life from inorganic matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Ed, you are using words as if they mean anything in a world of random biochemical beings.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Im sorry if I stick to single points and refuse to get drawn out into your rambling state of oblivion, but debating the whole theory of evolution is insane.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ They've also pointed out that regardless of how life started, that the theory of evolution best supports how the first organism(s) became as diverse as they are now.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Others have already pointed out that there are many Christians who support (and have made great contributions to) evolutionary theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
of Phil. ii. 287, and
Leibnitzsche Gedanken in
der modernen Naturwissenschaft, p. 23 seq.).
For Herder's position in relation to the modern doctrine of
evolution see F. von Barenbach's Herder als Vorgdnger
Darwins, a work which tends to exaggerate the proximity of the
two writers.
.^ It is a fact that our earth revolves around the sun.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Darwinian theory is about the origin if biodiversity - why all the past and present organisms on planet earth have the traits that they do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
in his cosmology Kant thus relies on mechanical conceptions, in
his treatment of organic life his mind is, on the contrary,
dominated by teleological ideas. An organism was to him something
controlled by a formative organizing principle.
.^ From the Wikipedia article: "The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Wikipedia tells me only that he showed that "the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Experience forbids our excluding organic
activity from natural causes, also our excluding intelligence from
purposeful (
zwecktdtigen) causes; hence experience forbids
our defining the fundamental force or first cause out of which
living creatures arose.'
Just as Kant thus sharply marks off the regions of the inorganic
and the organic, so he sets man in strong opposition to the lower
animals. His ascription to man of a unique faculty, free-will,
forbade his conceiving our species as a link in a graduated series
of organic developments.
.^ When we developed the ability to sequence and compare proteins from different species, for example, we then had a whole new set of data that could have falsified our theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Are you saying it is counterproductive to show how each of his arguments was fallacious and that he has no real understanding of logic, epistemology, history or science?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But one would think he would care a little more about our country's history and about the particulars of the Constitution, as a politician involved in making that history and debating about that Constitution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So part of the evolution of the human mind likely was the development of moral feelings, an innate sense of right and wrong, that helped keep social order.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So part of the evolution of the human mind likely was the development of moral feelings, an innate sense of right and wrong, that helped keep social order.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Thus Kant, though he appropriated and gave new form to the idea of
human progress, conceived of this as wholly distinct from a natural
(mechanical) process.
.^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ To say Dr. Paul is unscientific because of his personal views on evolution is utter crap and just another lame attempt to sway the masses towards the "chosen" ones.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Schelling
.^ And if you could describe the process by which evolution becomes fact, that'd be ever so nice, but I'm not seeing it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Nature and mind (which are the two sides, or polar
directions, of the one absolute) are each viewed as an activity
advancing by an uninterrupted succession of stages.
.^ I was merely pointing out the FACT that most of what you have written is completely meaningless.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He doesn't come out and say that there's no evolutionary process at work in the world he believes to have been created by "the creator [he] know[s]."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Nature is essentially a process of
organic self-evolution. It can only be understood by subordinating
the mechanical conception to the vital, by conceiving the world as
one organism animated by a spiritual principle or intelligence
(
Weltseele).
.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We sent troops to Iraq to speed up the process of natural selection.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is ZERO scientific evidence to support the theory of self-organization of inorganic elements into organic Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ If those relationships were real, then the protein comparisons should show the same degree of relationship between those species.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is ZERO scientific evidence to support the theory of self-organization of inorganic elements into organic Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Evolution can't become a "law" because a scientific law is a just a formal, usually mathematical, statement about the way nature behaves across a set of conditions.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As I showed Evolution through breeding and selective planting is as old as civilization itself.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So, what the question - do you believe in evolution - boils down to is - do you believe that life was created by random processes not brought about by a creator or do you believe that in some way the universe was designed for life and shows every evidence that there is a creator behind it all.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Theory according to my links states To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is ZERO scientific evidence to support the theory of self-organization of inorganic elements into organic Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ STOP DOING THAT. There IS no proof for theories in science.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I am not equating these groups (only the first one is murderous and a physical threat to us), but we can't shun science and still succeed in the 21st century.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Is this Evolution natural or will it fail, and how?"- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Is this Evolution natural or will it fail, and how?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In the
introduction to his work
Von der Weltseele, however, he
argues in favour of the possibility of a transmutation of species
in periods incommensurable with ours.
.^ Linnaeus described the relation of species enough that you could call his taxonomy the Fact of Evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Others found the more complete version and that link was given several times in the comments above.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As I've noted above, evolution is "only" a few thousand times more likely to be true than any other theory we've got to explain a century and a half of experimentation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
way of three stages - theoretic, practical and aesthetical
activity. Schelling's later theosophic speculations do not
specially concern us here.
Followers of Schelling
Of the followers of Schelling a word or two must be said.
.^ It is a theory which best explains the data about how life developed on earth.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There were previously facts that were explainable by the theory that the earth was round, but we later developed the ability to actually observe.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Darwinian theory is about the origin if biodiversity - why all the past and present organisms on planet earth have the traits that they do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved out of slime, programmed in their biochemical body processes with certain inalienable rights...- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I think God could/can use absolutely any method He chose/chooses to construct this physical world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Im sorry if I stick to single points and refuse to get drawn out into your rambling state of oblivion, but debating the whole theory of evolution is insane.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Secondly as Ive pointed out, the current context of that statement in the world we live in implicitly refers to the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If you and I are determined by the biochemical processes in our bodies, and there is nothing "fallacious" or "truthful" or "logical" in a biochemical process, how do you determine what is fallacy and what is not?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The process is essentially a polar linear
action, or differentiation from a common centre. By means of this
process the bodies of the solar system separate themselves, and the
order of cosmic evolution is repeated in that of terrestrial
evolution. The organic world (like the world as a whole) arises out
of a primitive chaos, namely, the infusorial slime.
A somewhat similar working out of Schelling's idea is to be found
in H. C. Oersted's work entitled
The Soul in Nature (Eng.
trans.).
.^ For that matter, he may well understand that already-- that may be why he didn't raise his hand to say that he disagreed with evolution, but made these nebulous statements later about the creator and origins.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is an unknown factor in the equation of evolution and yet we tend to take the later parts of evolution granted as factual based upon a primordial progenitor theory."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Because according to the evolutionary theory itself, any behavior is a dialectical product of chance and biochemical processes, not a logical action by a logically thinking free human being.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Bo said: "Because according to the evolutionary theory itself, any behavior is a dialectical product of chance and biochemical processes, not a logical action by a logically thinking free human being."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Like Schelling, Hegel conceives the problem of existence as one
of becoming.
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Because according to the evolutionary theory itself, any behavior is a dialectical product of chance and biochemical processes, not a logical action by a logically thinking free human being.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
"
This process (W. Wallace remarks) knows nothing of the distinctions
between past and future, because it implies an eternal present."
This conception of an immanent spontaneous evolution is applied
alike both to nature and to mind and history.
.^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I find the comments here expressing dismay at how an M.D. could possibly deny evolution, amusing.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "There is the altar of traditional evolutionary theory that expresses itself in a gradual process and then there is the altar "punctuate equilibrium" to explain extremely rapid life-burst of accelerated evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ After all, the Bible says that God sends floods and storms and other natural disasters.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Furthermore, these theories are able to predict the results of further experimentation - that is, the hypotheses one derives from a theory turn out to occur in experimentation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Nature is nature, there is no "problems" in nature, just good old laws and processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Secondly: A bacteria may develop resistance to one antibiotic (naturally occuring or otherwise) and have cross resistance to another because the antibiotic mechanism is similar.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ (They also accept miracles, with the understanding that they represent temporary suspension of those natural laws that consistently apply at all other times.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That's all accepting evolution rules out, religiously (and one would think the fossil record would have done that even without evolution).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Only spirit has a history; in nature all forms are
contemporaneous.2 Hegel's interpretation of mind and history as a
process of evolution has more scientific interest than his
conception of nature.
.^ Naive on legal philosophy as well as on history.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Of course it's alive, and conception is as good a point to declare that life's start than any other.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Because according to the evolutionary theory itself, any behavior is a dialectical product of chance and biochemical processes, not a logical action by a logically thinking free human being.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
So,
too, some of his conceptions respecting the development of art and
religion (the absolute spirit) lend themselves to a similar
interpretation.
.^ Evolution is an extremely well established theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Also look at the FURTHER READINGS, where the major creationist website also agrees that your whole 'fact/theory' discussion is nothing but a red herring: What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
as conditioned in time by lower forms.
.^ Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ No, in this case the free market of ideas is the laboratory, which has provided mountains of evidence for evolution and maybe microscopic droplets here and there for other theories.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If they had any respect for the free market of ideas, one of the foundations of libertarian philosophy, they wouldn't be so vehement for support of a person that is himself supporting ideas that lost (and quite decisively) in that free market of ideas.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Education "experts" on government payroll who ban teaching of any alternative to evolution in schools are proponents of "free market of ideas"?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ When Dr. Paul said he rejected evolution he was speaking in the context of rejecting evolutionary naturalism, or the theory that Nature and Nature alone has been the only thing ever at work in biological history.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ If I have a choice between a candidate who recognizes the validity of one of the most important ideas in science and one who not only doesn't but panders to the most ignorant members of society when he ought to know better, I'm going to choose the former.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Schopenhauer
.^ Many who claim to be evolutionists only look at point 6 and call that 'evolution.'- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One will never have 100% belief in a candidate's positions, but this is trivial....He still is the only honest contender, no wonder he is dissected (unlike EVERY other candidate) .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There are a number of philosophers who have addressed the issue of atheistic epistemology.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
This writer, by his conception of the world as
will which objectifies itself in a series of gradations from the
lowest manifestations of matter up to conscious man, gives a
slightly new shape to the evolutional view of Schelling, though he
deprives this view of its optimistic character by denying any
co-operation of
intelligence in the world-process.
.^ In fact I argue that many facets of the contemporary world make a more limited government more rather than less desirable.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is laughable to suggest that Newton's Laws are to be ranked higher than string theory, the theory of relativity, or quantum mechanics, for example.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Moreover, Schopenhauer's subjective idealism, and his view of time
as something illusory, hindered him from viewing this process as a
sequence of events in time. Thus he ascribes eternity of existence
to species under the form of the " Platonic ideas." As Ludwig Noire
observes, Schopenhauer has no feeling for the problem of the origin
of organic beings.
.^ Ok, so first he misunderstands evolution by saying it has something to do with "origins", which is wrong.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It's the way you figure out what physical movements to make when you plan to accomplish something.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Von Baer. - . fore leaving the German speculation of the
first half of the century, a word must be said of von Baer, to
whose biological contributions we shall refer later in this
article, who recognized in the law of development the law of the
universe as a whole.
^ That said, the policies of today's Social Democratic parties over most of the world -- and this is what, I suppose, most academics support -- would, for the most part, not even be recognized as socialism by 19th-century socialists.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolutionary theory as a whole has been substantiated by a century and a half of experimentation and theory, and Paul tosses it all aside by saying "It's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In his
Entwickelungsgeschichte der
Thiere (p.
.^ Right now, reason, evidence, logic, study, all tell us that apparently God used evolution to create our bodies.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ F=Gm1m2/d2 is a Law - (and is wrong in critical ways) but it does not tell us diddly squat about how gravity works.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Isn't that the favourite job for social engineers: tell us what is good for us as a collective as over against what is good for us as individuals?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It is the same thought which collected in the cosmic space the
divided masses into spheres, and combined these to solar systems;
the same which caused the weather-beaten
dust on the surface of our metallic planet to
spring forth into living forms." Von Baer thus prepared the way for
Herbert Spencer's generalization of the law of organic evolution as
the law of all evolution.
Comte
As we arrive at the r 9th century, though yet before the days of
Darwin,
biology is already
beginning to affect the general aspect of thought.
.^ Darwin also separately wrote: "It is pure rubbish, thinking at the present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But Darwin wrote 150 years ago, for crying out loud, and he didn't even know what a gene was.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Others have already pointed out that there are many Christians who support (and have made great contributions to) evolutionary theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ When in human history has spontaneous generation ever been observed?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution is a scientific theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That's a real consequence in believing in "evolution theory" as a natural law.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I don't "need" a virgin birth so I have no problem believing that Jesus had a mother and father who conceived him in the same way every other human was conceived.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Development of the Biological Doctrine
.^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Red Phillips MD: "In modern terms, as this site amply illustrates, evolution does not just mean a theory of common descent, survival of the fittest, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Parts 1-3 aren't even BIOLOGY, and evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Education "experts" on government payroll who ban teaching of any alternative to evolution in schools are proponents of "free market of ideas"?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ When Dr. Paul said he rejected evolution he was speaking in the context of rejecting evolutionary naturalism, or the theory that Nature and Nature alone has been the only thing ever at work in biological history.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The term evolution in common parlance does mean something other than the purely technical meaning you and others are claiming it means.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is quite obvious that there was editing that took place at 31 seconds into the video.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Scientifically it's one thing, but many use the term to include theories about the creation of the universe, which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ We couldn't think without the brain, but our thoughts can't be entirely explained simply by referring to the chemical processes that take place within it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ For example, it uses the low "uncaught error" rate to postulate that, er, I dunno, some higher power is keeping the DNA of all the cells on the planet in line.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Nonetheless, he is IMO the most appealing of any GOP candidate due to his stance on the war and relative 'minimal' integration of religion into politics.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
" Et primo, quidem, quoniam per
epigenesin sive partium
superexorientium additamentum pullum fabricari certum est: quaenam
pars ante
alias omnes
exstruatur, et quid de illa ejusque generandi modo observandum
veniat, dispiciemus. Ratum sane est et in ovo manifeste apparet
quod
Aristoteles de perfectorum animalium generatione
enuntiat: nimirum, non omnes partes simul fieri, sed ordine aliam
post aliam; primumque existere particulam genitalem, cujus virtute
postea (tanquam ex principio quodam) reliquae omnes partes
prosiliant. Qualem in plantarum seminibus (fabis, puta, aut
glandibus) gemmam sive apicem protuberantem cernimus, totius
futurae arboris principium.
Estque haec particula velut filius emancipatus seorsumque
collocatus, et principium per se vivens; unde postea membrorum ordo
describitur; et quaecunque ad absolvendum animal pertinent,
disponuntur. 2 Quoniam enim
nulla pars se ipsam general;
sed postquam generata est, se ipsam jam auget; ideo eam primum
oriri necesse est, quae principium augendi contineat (sive enim
planta, sive animal est, aeque omnibus inest quod vim habeat vegetandi, sive
nutriendi), 3 simulque reliquas omnes partes suo quamque
ordine distinguat et formet; proindeque in eader primogenita
particula anima primario inest, sensus, motusque, et totius vitae
auctor et principium." (
Exercitatio 51.)
.^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ You are the one who talked about parts of the human body (i.e.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I mean, whatever happened to the good old biochemical processes?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ These are all facts, meaning they are observational data .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And if the Constitution really forbids the people as a whole (by means of the government) to fund research, even though research is an investment that pays off for everyone, then maybe it should be amended, don't you think?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The weight of Malpighi's observations therefore fell into the scale
of that doctrine which Harvey terms metamorphosis, in
contradistinction to epigenesis. The views of Malpighi were warmly
welcomed on philosophical grounds by Leibnitz, 4 who found in them
a support to his 1 The Exercitationes de generatione
animalium, which Dr George Ent extracted from him and
published in 1651.
2 De generatione animalium, lib. ii. cap. x.
3 De generatione animalium, lib. ii. cap. iv.
.^ Lee, I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I am not equating these groups (only the first one is murderous and a physical threat to us), but we can't shun science and still succeed in the 21st century.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ And snide comparison of made up religions like the Spaghetti Monster to Christianity, the cornerstone of Western Civilization, don't help the matter.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The consequence of this intussusceptive growth is the " development
" or " evolution " of the germ into the visible
bird.
.^ People mean different things when they say theory of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ God gave us, apparently through the process of evolution, bodies that can do good things or bad things, and brains that can reason and create models of the physical world as maps to guide our conscious behavior in doing what we have chosen to do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The growth of an organic being is simply a process of enlargement,
as a particle of dry gelatine may be swelled up by the
intussusception of water; its death is a shrinkage, such as the
swelled jelly might undergo on
desiccation.
.^ And since you were using it in the context of making a point about the Constitution, I found it rather absurd that you were using a state law (which has nothing to do with the Constitution) to do so.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Science is merely a descriptive tool to analyze the real world, and because we can't know everything that exists in the real world, we can't definitively say that this or that theory is necessarily true.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Now, since the discussion is about evolution, you need to explain how in the world we evolved that "liberty" thing out of our biochemical processes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Mais cette imagination est bien eloignee de la nature des choses.
11 n'y a point de tel passage; et c'est ici ou les transformations
de Messieurs Swammerdam, Malpighi, et Leewenhoek, qui sont des plus
excellens observateurs de notre tems, sont venues a mon secours et
m'ont fait admettre plus aisement, que 1'animal, et toute autre
substance organisee ne commence point lorsque nous le croyons, et
que sa generation apparente n'est qu'un developpement et une espece
d'augmentation. Aussi
ai-je remarque
que l'auteur de la
Recherche de la verite, M. Regis, M.
Hartseeker, et d'autres habiles hommes n'ont pas ete fort eloignes
de ce sentiment." Leibnitz,
Systeme nouveau de la nature
(1695). The doctrine of " Emboitement " is contained in the
Considerations sur le principe de vie (1705); the preface
to the
Theodicee (1710); and the
Principes de la
nature et de la grace
(§ 6) (1718).
' " Il est vrai que la pensee la plus raisonnable et la plus
conforme a l'experience sur cette question tres difficile de la
formation du foetus; c'est que les enfans sont déjà presque tout
formes avant meme l'action par laquelle ils sont conqus; et que
leurs meres ne
font que leur
donner l'accroissement ordinaire dans le temps de la grossesse."
De la recherche de la verite, livre ii. chap. vii. p. 334
(7th ed., 1721).
2 Considerations sur les corps organises, chap. x.
Bonnet had the courage of his opinions, and in the
Palingenesie philosophique, part vi. chap. iv., he
develops a hypothesis which he terms
.^ Feel free to make that assumption yourself; it has no bearing at all on the truth of the theory of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's also a theory of cosmological evolution, but that too has no bearing on the validity of biological evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
" Abuserois-je de la liberte de conjectures si je disois, que les
Plantes et les Animaux qui existentujourd'hui sont parvenus par une
sorte d'evolution naturelle des Etres organises qui peuplaient ce
premier Monde, sorti immediatement des Mains du Createur ? ..
.
" Ne supposons que trois revolutions. La Terre vient de sortir des
Mains du Createur. Des causes preparees par sa Sagesse font
developper de toutes parts les Germes. Les Etres organises
commencent a jouir de l'existence. Its etoient probablement alors
bien differens de ce qu'ils sont aujourd'hui. Its l'etoient autant
que ce premier Monde differoit de celui que nous habitons. Nous
manquons de moyens pour juger de ces dissemblances, et peut-titre
que le plus habile Naturaliste qui auroit ete place dans ce premier
Monde y auroit entierement meconnu nos Plantes et nos Animaux."
.^ All these things are part of our physical bodies.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As our children fall behind those of other developed nations in math and hard science, we actually have at least two candidates for president that don't believe in evolution...truly sad and embarrassing.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He was speculating - this was not a hypothesis, it was not part of the Theory of Evolution - it was speculation, labeled as such.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Biology is based on more than evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If shown all that evidence, would you still claim that it's merely a rhetorical ploy, using observable phenomena as evidence for evolution?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As I've noted above, evolution is "only" a few thousand times more likely to be true than any other theory we've got to explain a century and a half of experimentation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ If an MD were truly not to believe in evolution, they would still be prescribing penicillin for all infections.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Many, if not most, of the established Christian churches explicitly support honest science, and evolution, in their doctrines.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If evolution were a principle science, instead of a theory, it would provide the consistent application of law throughout the entire process.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In a well-known note to
Charles Leopold Laurillard's
Eloge, prefixed to the last
edition of the
Ossemens fossiles, the " radical de l'etre
" is much the same thing as Aristotle's " particula genitalis " and
Harvey's " ovum." Bonnet's eminent contemporary, Buffon, held
nearly the same views with respect to the nature of the germ, and
expresses them even more confidently.
" Ceux qui ont cru que le coeur etoit le premier forme, se sont
trompes; ceux qui disent que c'est le sang se trompent aussi: tout
est forme en meme temps. Si l'on ne consulte que l'observation, le
poulet se voit dans l'ceuf avant qu'il ait ete couve." J'ai ouvert
une grande quantite d'ceufs a differens temps avant et apres
l'incubation, et je me suis convaincu par mes yeux que le poulet
existe en entier dans le milieu de la cicatrule au moment qu'il
sort du corps de la poule." The " moule interieur " of Buffon is
the aggregate of elementary parts which constitute the individual,
and is thus the equivalent of Bonnet's germ, as defined in the
passage cited above.
But Buffon further imagined that innumerable "molecules organiques
" are dispersed throughout the world, and that alimentation
consists in the
appropriation by the parts of an.
organism of those molecules which are analogous to them.
.^ If therefore, evolution is based on laws that normally govern science why does accepted process of evolution not consistently follow such laws?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Buffon's
opinion is, in fact, a sort of combination of views, essentially
similar to those of Bonnet, with others, somewhat similar to those
of the " Medici " whom Harvey condemns. The " molecules organiques
" are physical equivalents of Leib nitz's " monads."
.^ Ed, I think evolution comes closer and closer to the "fact" that Mike thinks we should observe it as (at least, if we're going to suffer for being so arrogant as to constantly proclaim its superiority over non fact-based, non-theories like creationism and intelligent design!- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, and mitochondrial DNA, primate genetic studies, and the fossil record provide incontrovertible evidence that the theory of evolution is accurate.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
But Wolff had no immediate Ce mot (germe) ne
designera pas seulement un corps organise
reduit en petit;
it designera encore toute espece de
preformation originelle
dont un Tout organique peut resulter comme de son principe
immediat." - Palingenesie philosophique, part. x. chap.
ii.
M. Cuvier considerant que tous les titres organises sont derives de
parens, et ne voyant dans la nature aucune force capable de
produire l'organisation, croyait a la
pre-existence des germes; non
pas a la pre-existence d'un titre tout forme, puisqu'il est bien
evident que ce n'est que par des developpemens successifs que
l'etre acquiert sa forme; mais, si l'on peut s'exprimer ainsi, a la
pre-existence du
radical de l'etre, radical qui existe
avant que la serie des evolutions ne commence, et qui remonte
certainement, suivant la
belle
observation de Bonnet, a plusieurs generations." - Laurillard,
Eloge de Cuvier, note 12.
6 Histoire naturelle, tom. ii. ed. ii. (1750), p.
Ibid. p. 351. See particularly Buffon, l.c. p.
41.
successors.
.^ Of course, I would only point to the fact that if evolutionist philosophers are trying to find a solution to the problems I posed, they will have to do it without the scientists.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ (For the record, I have seen evolution on a petri dish full of bacteria and bacteriophages, and so did everyone else in that first-year molecular biology course.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Theories get proved quite a few times a year.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Not that a non-vetted President-elect would live to see inauguration day, but building a movement of autonomy seems to be the only hope for stalling if not stopping this process.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And your snide use of the term "crackpot ideas" helps make my case, not yours.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Anyone who knows Paul would already know his stands on evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ At the very least he slept through biology (doesn't accept evolution) and history (thinks Lincoln could have prevented the Civil War and that it was only about slavery).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The Virgin Birth is theologically essential because if Jesus had two natural parents he would have had a sin nature like every other human, and he would not have lived a sinless life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Let's see: Observe what happens when a professor at a major university presents anything that contradicts the accepted tenets of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The Evolution of the Sum of Living Beings
.^ This may come as a surprise to y'all, but providing quality care to human beings suffering from any disease I can think of is not predicated on the belief that evolution is true.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
These are: I. The enunciation by Descartes of the
conception that the physical universe, whether living or not
living, is a mechanism, and that, as such, it is explicable on
physical principles.
.^ The great economic challenge for this country in this century will be maintaining our very high relative standard of living.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Personally based on observable data one must form postulates, things that aren't proved that one believes in.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He might veto one specific kind of law in favor of another kind that does the same thing but in accordance with his Right-wing Constitutionalist viewpoint.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
3. The observation of the existence of an analogy between the
series of gradations presented by the species which compose any
great group of animals or plants, and the series of embryonic
conditions of the highest members of that group.
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If common descent is true, those sequence homologies between proteins in different species must fall into the same kind of pattern we observe in the fossil record.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ You mean different species follow different parts of evolutionary theory?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ In that case "facts" are only valid in an axiomatic framework, i.e., "the set of integers forms a group under multiplication", which is only true given definitions of sets, numbers, and algebraic structures.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As Ron Paul stated, we are not at the point to definitively say one way or the other.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ For one thing, if you think voters and Iraqis are other species...but I'm guessing that was satire (or a clumsy attempt at it).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could have ever been present.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
7. The observation of the facts of geographical
distribution.
8. The observation of the facts of the geological succession of
the forms of life.
1. Notwithstanding the elaborate disguise which fear of the
powers that were led Descartes to throw over his real opinions, it
is impossible to read the Principes de la philosophie
without acquiring the conviction that this great philosopher held
that the physical world and all things in it, whether living or not
living, have originated by a process of evolution, due to the
continuous operation of purely physical causes, out of a primitive
relatively formless matter.' ' As Billion has well said: - " L'idee
de ramener l'explication de tons les phenomenes a des principes
mecaniques est assurement grande et belle,ce pas est le plus hardi
qu'on peut faire en philosophic, et c'est Descartes qui l'a fait."
- l.c. p. 50.
.^ As an Atheist woman who may well be partially dependent on my Social Security in my old age, I'm damned glad he's got little to no chance of winning.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
La religion chretienne veut
que nous le croyons ainsi, et la raison naturelle nous persuade
entierement cette verite;
car si
nous considerons la toute puissance de Dieu, nous devons juger que
tout ce qu'il a fait a eu des le commencement toute la perfection
qu'il devoit avoir.
Mais neanmoins, comme on connoitroit beaucoup mieux quelle a etc la
nature d'Adam et celle des arbres de Paradis si on avoit examine
comment les enfants se forment peu a peu dans le ventre de leurs
mores et comment les plantes sortent de leurs semences, que si on
avoit seulement considers quels ils ont etc quand
Dieu les a crees: tout de meme, nous ferons mieux entendre quelle
est generalement la nature de toutes les choses qui sont au monde
si nous pouvons imaginer quelques principes qui soient fort
intelligibles et fort simples, desquels nous puissions voir
clairement que les astres et la terre et enfin tout ce monde
visible auroit pu titre produit ainsi que de quelques semences
(bien que nous sachions qu'il n'a pas ste produit en cette fawn)
que si nous la decrivions seulement comme it est, ou bien comme
nous croyons qu'il a ste cree.
Et parceque je pense avoir trouvs des principes qui sont tels, je
tacherai ici de les expliquer."
.^ What is true for one species may not apply to another species when the evidence is contradictory."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ As another commenter above explained, laws are purely descriptive, while theories are explanatory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Apparently, Gretchen, you don't read my posts, and therefore you can't see that my argument is not based on physical make up, but on what you believe about the origin of man.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Spinoza abounds in the same sense, and is as usual perfectly candid
" Naturae leges et regulae, secundum quas omnia fiunt et ex unis
formis in alias mutantur, sunt ubique et semper eadem."
.^ As long as my master believes in evolution, I will continue supporting him/her.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He simply does not accept evolution as a theory, as fanatical adherents do, in the materialistic totality that denies the possibility of divine intervention in the process, which is not the same as denying every aspect of that theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In the
Protogaea, xxvi., Leibnitz distinctly suggests the
mutability of species " Alii mirantur in saxis passim species
videri quas vel in orbe cognito, vel saltem in vicinis locis
frustra quaeras.
Ita
Cornua Ammonis, quae ex nautilorum numero habeantur,
passim et forma et magnitudine (nam et pedali diametro aliquando
reperiuntur) ab omnibus illis naturis discrepare dicunt, quas
praebet mare. Sed quis absconditos ejus recessus aut subterraneas
abyssos pervestigavit ? quam multa nobis animalia antea ignota
offert novus orbis ? Et credibile est per magnas illas
conversiones etiam animalium species plurimum immutatas."
.^ Biology is based on more than evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In my book, it is far more reasonable to question everything than to simply accept anything, especially based on a hypothesis that is widely accepted as "truth".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I'm an agnostic, leaning more towards atheism, and based on Ron Paul's view of what liberty means I could care less if he doesn't outright accept the theory of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Among the earliest of these speculations is that put forward by
Benoit de Maillet in his
Telliained, which, though printed
in 1735, was not published until twenty-three years later.
.^ Also, if you're going to quote more than one person at a time when you're posting, you need to make it clear who you're quoting, and when.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In my book, it is far more reasonable to question everything than to simply accept anything, especially based on a hypothesis that is widely accepted as "truth".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So either he considers his personal beliefs more important than the mountains of evidence, or he simply doesn't know about the mountains of evidence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Yes Darwin studied artificial selection in order to understand natural selection, which is a MECHANISM of evolution, not the same thing as evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution likewise can be studied by the evidence left behind, but there every single living thing (and many non-living things as well) bears the stamps of what happened in the past.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Somewhat later, P. L. M. de Maupertuis 4
suggested a curious hypothesis as to the causes of variation, which
he thinks may be sufficient to account for the origin of all
animals
2 Principes de la philosophie, Troisieme partie, §
45.
3 Ethices, Pars tertia, Praefatio.
4 Systeme de la Nature. Essai sur la formation des corps
organises, 1751, xiv.
from a single pair.
.^ Nowhere would we see anything we could call a "thought", much less anything like .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Nowhere would we see anything we could call a "thought", much less anything like "truth", "love" or "good".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And even Catholics seem to be having second thoughts about it, as their is a lot less emphasis on infant baptism and the notion of "Limbo" is pretty much defunct.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ That's the same as saying he doesn't believe in evolution, which has nothing to do with how much of evolution he rejects.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The modification of DNA with in species has been accepted since man first started cultivating crops and animals via selective breeding and planting.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Whether one thinks it's important or not, Ron Paul does, in fact, reject evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The question is, why didn't he raise his hand in the May 3rd event when everyone of the Republican candidates were asked whether they believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The issue isn't whether evolution is right or wrong; it's about whether governments should be involved *at all*.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ But theories are verified largely by their ability to make accurate predictions about the nature of new facts not yet discovered.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ No one is stopping any ID advocate from publishing anything they want.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It is remarkable that each of these writers seems to have been led,
independently and contemporaneously, to invent the same name of "
biology " for the science of the phenomena of life; and thus,
following Buffon, to have recognized the essential unity of these
phenomena, and their contradistinction from those of inanimate
nature. And it is hard to say whether Lamarck or Treviranus has the
priority in propounding the main thesis of the doctrine of
evolution; for though the first volume of Treviranus's
Biologie appeared only in 1802, he says, in the preface to
his later work, the Erscheinungen and Gesetze des organischen
Lebens, dated 1831, that he wrote the first volume of the
Biologie " nearly five-and-thirty years ago," or about
1796.
.^ But since it doesn't have to do with evolution, I don't have to show that it's 99% probable, just that there's evidence to back up the theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ When I hear someone say this, I think, "Now there's someone who saying he's too lazy to even look at the evidence...."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But people who do so at least have a reason - that is, that there's far too much evidence for evolution to point to ALL of it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
" 686. Tous les individus de cette nature, qui existent,
proviennent d'individus semblables qui tous ensemble constituent
l'espece entiere. Or, je crois qu'il est aussi impossible a l'homme
de connoitre la cause physique du premier individu de chaque
espece, que d'assigner aussi physiquement la cause de l'existence
de la matiere ou de l'univers entier. C'est au moins ce que le
resultat de mes connaissances et de mes reflexions me portent a
penser. S'il existe beaucoup de varietes produites par l'effet des
circonstances, ces varietes ne denaturent point les especes; mais
on se trompe, sans doute souvent, en indiquant comme espece, ce qui
n'est que variete; et alors je
sens que cette erreur peut tirer a consequence
dans les raisonnements que 1'on fait sur cette matiere."
The first three volumes of Treviranus's Biologie, which
contains his general views of evolution, appeared between 1802 and
1805. The Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants,
which sketches out Lamarck's doctrines, was published in 1802; but
the full development of his views in the Philosophic
zoologique did not take place until 1809.
1 Considerations philosophiques sur la gradation naturelle des
formes de l'etre; ou les essais de la nature qui apprend d faire
l'homme (1768).
Recherches sur les causes des principaux faits
physiques, par J. B. Lamarck.
Paris. Seconde annee de la Republique. In the
preface, Lamarck says that the work was written in 1776, and
presented to the Academy in 1780; but it was not published before
2794, and at that time it presumably expressed Lamarck's mature
views.
.^ I don't generally post on subjects I'm not interested in or know nothing about, though.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And if you know nothing about what I am talking about, and still express your opinion on it, it demonstrates not mine, but your utter inability to use logic.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ This was about eight years ago when he had just published on the predominance of ideological sentiments in Darwin and Huxley.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Archeologists do this all the time for instance when they study how people in the past lived by excavating thier farms and houses.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I do admit that Darwin spent very little time hypothesizing the origin of life, except to hypothesize that it was the product of a warm pond somewhere (in greater detail).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Ed, how do you define "rational level" vs. At the very bottom, they are just product of biochemical processes, aren't they?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Lee, I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Isn't that just as much of a miracle and just as marvelous - if not more so, because it provides a model for how God can dwell within us as well?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I think that so far the scientific theory of evolution is by far the best, indeed the only, useful and extensively supported explanation we have of what that physical process of creation is.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
For many years it was the fashion to speak of Lamarck with
ridicule, while Treviranus was altogether ignored.
Nevertheless, the work had been done.
.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The name of Darwin's book was "Origin of the SPECIES".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The name of Darwin's book was "Origin of the SPECIES".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And when that "capacity for culture" appeared, we are not talking about biological evolution anymore, it is now "cultural evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Can't wait to hear what Eugene Volokh has to say about that cause apparently I'm just too insignificant a challenge for such a legal wunderkind as the aforementioned, no matter how much he/she/it poses as someone actually interested in discussing Ron Paul's disinterest in empricism.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Then they cannot understand why creationists cannot believe it, or see clear science, not understanding that the whole evolution package includes the other 5 theories.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The profound and vigorous. writings of Spencer embody the spirit of
Descartes in the knowledge of our own day, and may be regarded as
the Principes de la philosophic of the 19th century;
while, whatever hesitation may not unfrequently be felt by less
daring minds in following Haeckel in many of his speculations, his
attempt to systematize the doctrine of evolution and to exhibit its
influence as the central thought of modern biology, cannot fail to
have a far-reaching influence on the progress of science.
.^ If that's what he was saying, then he's just as confused about the difference between origins and evolution as you are.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Here's the definition of a "scientific theory" that demonstrates how it differs from "facts", and in fact takes precedent over it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The fact that you still don't get the difference between theory, fact and law only shows what a fucking moron you are.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
For those which are grouped
under the second to the seventh of these classes, respectively,
have a clear significance on the hypothesis of evolution, while
they are unintelligible if that hypothesis be denied.
.^ In that case "facts" are only valid in an axiomatic framework, i.e., "the set of integers forms a group under multiplication", which is only true given definitions of sets, numbers, and algebraic structures.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In fact, in the case of some of the people I've argued with over the years about this topic, I get the impression they go looking for evidence to support their belief after they've come to believe it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened In other words, it is just theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I submit the above as evidence of my assertion that scientific naturalism often leads to philosophical naturalism.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened Can anyone on this forum tell me?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
2. The accurate investigation of the lowest forms of animal life,
commenced by
Leeuwenhoek and Swammerdam, and continued
by the remarkable labours of
Reaumur, Abraham Trembley, Bonnet, and a host
of other observers in the latter part of the 17th and the first
half of the 18th centuries, drew the attention of biologists to the
gradation in the complexity of organization which is presented by
living beings, and culminated in the doctrine of the
echelle
des titres, so powerfully and clearly stated by Bonnet, and,
before him, adumbrated by Locke and by Leibnitz.
.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I don't ask God to speed up evolution to fit all the "kinds" of animals into the ark and get a tiger from a kitty cat in 4000 years.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In fact, he simply started from the assumption that the original self-replicating life form was placed here by a creator (hence the statement in the second edition of Origin of Species : "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
But, as knowledge advanced, this conception ceased to be tenable in
the crude form in which it was first put forward.
.^ Just one more example of why some of the biblical accounts need to be taken with a grain of salt because they were carefully constructed to accomodate groups that needed to be accomodated.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In fact, he simply started from the assumption that the original self-replicating life form was placed here by a creator (hence the statement in the second edition of Origin of Species : "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ No one - absolutely no one - says that On the Origin of Species (not "the" species) is "completely infallible gospel."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
' First Principles and
Principles of Biology
(1860-1864).
6 Generelle Morphologie (1866).
the species of a genus can hardly ever be arranged in linear
series.
.^ To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It dismisses all historical sciences...and would naturally exclude criminal forensics (which differs only in detail, not in principle).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ These are not only two separate steps, they're two entirely different theories.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Lamarck, while affirming the verbal proposition that animals form a
single series, was forced by his vast acquaintance with the details
of
zoology to limit the
assertion to such a series as may be formed out of the abstractions
constituted by the common characters of each group.'
.^ The fact that humans have never deliberately exposed bacteria to an antibiotic does not mean there has been no exposure - either naturally (most antibiotics are naturally occuring) or accidentially through the release of antibiotics into the environment in people or animal feces .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "The Man" (read, Saviour) is missing the point that it has to be about ideas, (and not ideals) and which ideas and plans and organizations are most survival-promoting for YOU in this real world.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One will never have 100% belief in a candidate's positions, but this is trivial....He still is the only honest contender, no wonder he is dissected (unlike EVERY other candidate) .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I don't ask God to speed up evolution to fit all the "kinds" of animals into the ark and get a tiger from a kitty cat in 4000 years.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Seems the justification for such high prices is to pay for all the research that went into it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
But the effect of the adoption of
these conclusions has been rather to substitute a new
metaphor for that of Bonnet
than to abolish the conception expressed by it.
.^ (Or maybe they're just playing with us - one can never be sure.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The ends of the twigs
represent individuals, the ` smallest groups of twigs species,
larger groups genera, and so on, until we arrive at the source of
all these ramifications of the main branch, which is represented by
a common plan of structure.
.^ Well, that's what I've been saying all along: No evolutionist can claim that he/she can give moral definitions based on the evolutionary theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
On the contrary, the lower members of each tend to converge towards
the lower members of all the others. The same may be said of the
vegetable world.
.^ In the sense that Darwin himself believed in his theory it meant the gradual transition over millions of years of one species into another.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Several commenters (Julia and Gretchen, eg) went most of the way down this path but for one reason or another stopped short along the way.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Personally based on observable data one must form postulates, things that aren't proved that one believes in.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I am not equating these groups (only the first one is murderous and a physical threat to us), but we can't shun science and still succeed in the 21st century.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
As Lamarck has well said:-2 " 11 n'y a que ceux qui se sont
longtemps et fortement occupes de la determination des especes, et
qui ont consulte de riches collections, qui peuvent savoir jusqu'a
quel point les especes, parmi les corps vivants, se
fondent les unes dans les autres, et qui ont pu se convaincre que,
dans les parties oft nous voyons des especes isolees, cela
n'est ainsi que parcequ'il nous en manque d'autres qui en sont plus
voisines et que nous n'avons pas encore recueillies.
.^ For a demonstration of this using a simple economic model and basic premises of anthropology, see my four-part series on DuWayne's blog: .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
11 en resulte que les
especes qui terminent
chaque rameau de la serie generale tiennent, au moms d'un cote, a
d'autres especes voisines qui se nuancent avec elles.
Voila ce que l'etat bien connu des choses me met maintenant a
portee de demontrer. Je n'ai besoin d'aucune hypothese ni d'aucune
supposition pour cela: j 'en atteste tous les naturalistes
observateurs." 3. In a remarkable essay 3 Meckel remarks: ' ` There
is no good physiologist who has not been struck by the observation
that the original form of all organisms is one and the 1 " 11
s'agit donc de prouver que la serie qui constitute l'echelle
animale reside essentiellement dans la distribution des masses
principales qui la composent et non dans celle des especes ni meme
touj ours dans celle des genres." - Phil. zoologique,
chap. v.
Philosophie zoologique, premiere partie, chap. iii.
" Entwurf einer Darstellung der zwischen dem Embryozustande der
hoheren Thiere and dem permanenten der niederen stattfindenden
Parallele," Beytrage zur vergleichenden Anatomie, Bd. ii.
1811.
same, and that out of this one form, all, the lowest as well as
the highest, are developed in such a manner that the latter pass
through the permanent forms of the former as transitory stages.
Aristotle, Haller, Harvey, Kielmeyer, Autenrieth, and many others
have either made this observation incidentally, or, especially the
latter, have drawn particular attention to it, and drawn therefrom
results of permanent importance for
physiology." Meckel proceeds to exemplify
the thesis, that the lower forms of animals represent stages in the
course of the development of the higher, with a large series of
illustrations.
.^ Theories don't become laws any more than they become facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ A LAW is the highest form of scientific certainty.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But within the prescribed boundaries that the Law exists it is by far more certain then a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In fact, there is a period when, as Aristotle long ago said, the
embryo of the highest animal has the form of a mere worm, and,
devoid of internal and external organization, is merely an almost
structureless lump of polype-substance. Notwithstanding the origin
of organs, it still for a certain time, by reason of its want of an
internal bony
skeleton,
remains worm and mollusk, and only later enters into the series of
the Vertebrata, although traces of the vertebral column even in the
earliest periods testify its claim to a place in that series." -
op. cit. pp. 4, 5.
.^ "Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There may come a time when scientists can look at the universe and confidently say "There is no God", but we are a long way from there.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In its original form, the
doctrine of " arrest of development," as advocated by Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire and Serres, was no doubt an over-statement of the
case.
It is not true, for example, that a
fish is a reptile arrested in its development, or
that a reptile was ever a fish; but it is true that the reptile
embryo, at one stage of its development, is an organism which, if
it had an independent existence, must be classified among fishes;
and all the organs of the reptile pass, in the course of their
development, through conditions which are closely analogous to
those which are permanent in some fishes.
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Part of the problem here is that people use the term 'theory' in different ways.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Not that a non-vetted President-elect would live to see inauguration day, but building a movement of autonomy seems to be the only hope for stalling if not stopping this process.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Ed, No point changing the topic, but if your going to insist that theories never become facts, Id like you to back that up with an authoritative source.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I would also add that the ranking of law > theory > hypothesis is also something I have never encountered in some 40 years of science going back to high school science.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ BoMar said: "Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Even Darwin said his theory is relevant only if the cell is a simple structure.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The one thing you can say about a Paul presidency is that he wouldn't involve the state with either science or religion, whatever his personal views on those matters.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ BoMar said: "Not only this epistemological question is not addressed by theory of evolution, but all epistemology is utterly destroyed by it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He just said that there is no way to know for sure how we came to be.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Evolution is an extremely well established theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It's pretty obvious from the way he answers this that Paul knows full well that the theory of evolution is solid science.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Well, I guess you need to vote for someone who is a die-hard believer in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
d'etre on any
other hypothesis.
.^ Many, if not most, of the established Christian churches explicitly support honest science, and evolution, in their doctrines.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There's a huge distinction between ackowledging the mechanism of evolution in the ADAPTATION of existent Life, and claiming it provides a supportable theory explaining the ORIGINS of Life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Jews do not have the doctrine at all, probably because there is scant support for it in the Old Testament - See Ezekial 18 for example.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Does it say "There is no God?"- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Only the professionally ignorant would fail to recognize thh pointlessness of saying there's no "absolute" proof of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Its a fact there are indeed many MD's who don't have a clue about evolution and many who reject it for whatever reasons.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Nevertheless,
doubleedged as is the argument from rudimentary organs, there is
probably none which has produced a greater effect in promoting the
general acceptance of the theory of evolution.
.^ Some people would prefer to think of evolution as a fact, and thats their right as long as they don't insist upon others forming the same postulate as they do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If therefore, evolution is based on laws that normally govern science why does accepted process of evolution not consistently follow such laws?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Since no one here has ever argued, or even suggested, that providing quality care is predicated on a belief in evolution, I can't imagine what your point was.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Lamarck introduced
the conception of the action of an animal on itself as a factor in
producing modification. Starting from the wellknown fact that the
habitual use of a
limb tends to
develop the muscles of the limb, and to produce a greater and
greater facility in using it, he made the general assumption that
the effort of an animal to exert an organ in a given direction
tends to develop the organ in that direction.
.^ But for Paul to throw in with the remaining 10^-14% shows just how much he doesn't want to accept evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That's the same as saying he doesn't believe in evolution, which has nothing to do with how much of evolution he rejects.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But people who do so at least have a reason - that is, that there's far too much evidence for evolution to point to ALL of it.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I remember many reasons suggested at teh time, but natural selection was not one of them, either from the pro war governments or the people who suggested the had ulterior motives.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Everyone of you that believes in "evolution theory" what means "survive of the fittest" has to accept, that a strong guy comes along and knocks you out.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Those who were unwilling to accept evolution, without better
grounds than such as are offered by Lamarck, and who therefore
preferred to suspend their judgment on the question, found in the
principle of selective breeding, pursued in all its applications
with marvellous knowledge and skill by Darwin, a valid explanation
of the occurrence of varieties and races; and they saw clearly
that, if the explanation would apply to species, it would not only
solve the problem of their evolution, but that it would account for
the facts of
teleology,
as well as for those of morphology; and for the persistence of some
forms of life unchanged through long epochs of time, while others
undergo comparatively rapid metamorphosis.
.^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Tell me why the forces of natural selection operating on a social species wouldn't/couldn't create a sense or moral sentiments.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Few can doubt that, if not the whole
cause, it is a very important factor in that operation; and that it
must play a great part in the sorting out of varieties into those
which are transitory and those which are permanent.
.^ You know, like natural selection, heritable variation and so on.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But you are kidding yourself if you think that the evolutionary, scientific establishment is not committed to dogmatic philosophical as well as scientific naturalism I suppose next you will be complaining that the dog breeding establishment is committed to dogmatically continuing to breed dogs with dogs, rather than dogs with cats or any other animal.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It is quite conceivable that every species tends to produce
varieties of a limited number and kind, and that the effect of
natural selection is to favour the development of some of these,
while it opposes the development of others along their
predetermined lines of modification.
.^ Science is a pursuit of physically observable fact, but being a creation of man, is no more infallible than man's interpretations of God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Very skilful
accommodation was needful, if the
limitation of sloths to
South America, and of the
Ornithorhynchus to
Australia, was to be reconciled with the
literal interpretation of the history of
the Deluge; and, with the establishment of
the existence of distinct provinces of distribution, any serious
belief in the peopling of the world by
migration from Mount
Ararat came to an end.
.^ Would these anti-Paul posters really vote for one of the other Republican candidates, such as Huckabee or Romney, who use religion in an attempt to snag the evangelical vote?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Most people accept only one slice of evolution and adopt five pieces without any real intensive study.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Many who claim to be evolutionists only look at point 6 and call that 'evolution.'- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
And
as the hypothesis of " specific centres," thus formulated, was
heterodox from the theological point of view, and unintelligible
under its scientific aspect, it may be passed over without further
notice, as a phase of transition from the creational to the
evolutional hypothesis.
.^ Except that you all act so arrogantly as if you already have those conclusive evolution-based definitions, and you are trying to judge other people views as if you have any firm epistemological ground to stand on.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Some people would prefer to think of evolution as a fact, and thats their right as long as they don't insist upon others forming the same postulate as they do.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is an unknown factor in the equation of evolution and yet we tend to take the later parts of evolution granted as factual based upon a primordial progenitor theory."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ That argument should be taken no more seriously than when the geocentrists make the same argument about Copernicus.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ NO, but, any of those other candidates in there will just bring the same old crap.....- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There is no way to compare the certainty between theories and laws because they are qualitatively different entities.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
It is possible to put into words the proposition,
that all the animals and plants of each geological epoch were
annihilated, and that a new set of very similar forms was created
for the next epoch, but it may be doubted if any one who ever tried
to form a distinct mental
image
of this process of spontaneous generation on the grandest scale
ever really succeeded in realizing it.
.^ Of course a biology department at a major university has to make it clear that his ID work is not supported by the department as scientific scholarship.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And the point in any event is, of course, not whether candidates are knowledgeable in some specialized area but whether they accept scientific consensus as the current best bet on an issue.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Evolution at the Beginning of the 20th century
Since Huxley and Sully wrote their masterly essays in the 9th
edition of this encyclopaedia, the doctrine of evolution has
outgrown the trammels of controversy and has been accepted as a
fundamental principle. Writers on biological subjects no longer
have to waste space in weighing evolution against this or that
philosophical theory or religious tradition; philosophical writers
have frankly accepted it, and the supporters of religious tradition
have made broad their phylacteries to write on them the new
words.
.^ They all want to take us back to the middle ages, at least when it comes to "how we got here" questions.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ People who have never made a creationist or ID statement get denied tenure and publication all the time because their scholarship is lacking scientific rigor.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ This is just like all those who said that "Darwin is wrong because we will never see proof that there was ever a 'walking fish' "...- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
general
acceptance of evolution; but it seems established as a historical
fact that the world has come to accept evolution, first, because of
.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ But in many cases (as with evolution), it's faith backed up by a lot of EVIDENCE. .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Some scientists who accept the theory of evolution dispute various bits of it (like, historically, punctuated equilibrium and coevolution - but I repeat an earlier post).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Since this is artificial selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin's theories about NATURAL selection.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolutionary theory states that speciation, the "diversity of life," is the result of chance variation interacting with a process of natural selection, it does not make claims to explain "any behavior."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened In other words, it is just theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Huxley, following historical custom, devoted one section of his
article to the " Evolution of the Individual."
.^ Theories that have been proved and are now fact/law.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Also look at the FURTHER READINGS, where the major creationist website also agrees that your whole 'fact/theory' discussion is nothing but a red herring: What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I don't see how someone can argue against the overwhelming evidence that in general we were not able to successfully oppose the trend of drifting towards theocracy.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I'm certainly no expert on history, but my gut is telling me that government had very little to do with those advancements.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Until then, Paul's denial of evolution tells us that, at least in some ways, he still is too tied into some bullshit to honestly move much of anything forward.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That is the form of every single ID argument - "not evolution, therefore God."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The vast bulk of botanical and zoological work on living and
extinct forms published during the last quarter of the 19th.
century increased almost beyond all expectation the
PhyJogeny ev
i dence for the fact of evolution.
.^ Darwin himself stated that his theory would be greatly compromised if the fossil record did not show evidence of such a transition.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If Darwin's theory only spoke of the genetic modifications in life it would have been laughed at by the average English farmer who's ancestors have been experts in the art of evolution for centuries."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Who's to say which of these theories would be right or wrong?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And when that "capacity for culture" appeared, we are not talking about biological evolution anymore, it is now "cultural evolution."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Now, that "capacity for culture" must have some definition on the basis of evolution, right?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ This is EVOLUTION. Already established as harmless to religious though, except for literalists.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Many, if not most, of the established Christian churches explicitly support honest science, and evolution, in their doctrines.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ A fallacy (which you asked about in an earlier post) is an identified error in the logic-thinking process, a error that reduces the probability of figuring out how to get what we want.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The
older method was to attempt the comparison between the highest
member of a lower group and the lowest member of a higher group -
to suppose, for example, that the
gorilla and the
chimpanzee, the highest members of the apes,
were the existing representatives of the ancestors of man and to
compare these forms with the lowest members of the human race.
.^ What do you expect, a stop-motion video depicting the evolution from the common ancestor of Eukarya, Prokarya and Archaea to modern man?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ The common ancestor is neither modern ape nor modern man (whether it's classifiably in the same genus as apes is a matter for taxonomists).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ According to evolutionary theory there was a common ancestor of apes and men, at which point the lines split, one evolving into apes and one evolving into men.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The only difference is that I can see you will never know, unless you invent some mystical missing link between biochemical processes and morality - which is what some of you are trying to do here with "interaction," "environment," etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I am still being lectured on the difference between the executive and legislative branches of government), and other than all that, as if that wasn't enough...- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Essentially, it boils down to, "Since random processes are involved, therefore nothing other than random processes exist."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The method is simply the logical result
of the fact that every existing form of life stands at the summit
of a
long branch of
the whole tree of life.
A due consideration of it leads to the curious
paradox that if any two animals be compared,
the zoologically lower will be separated from the common ancestor
by a larger number of generations, since, on the average, sexual
maturity is reached more quickly by the lower form.
.^ I remember many reasons suggested at teh time, but natural selection was not one of them, either from the pro war governments or the people who suggested the had ulterior motives.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The only meaningful comparison would be between theories and hypotheses, where theories have a higher level of certainty.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Another expression of the same method, due to Cope, and specially
valuable to the taxonomist, is that when the relationship between
orders is being considered, characters of subordinal rank must be
neglected.
.^ If shown all that evidence, would you still claim that it's merely a rhetorical ploy, using observable phenomena as evidence for evolution?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The result
is, on the one hand, a clearing away of much fantastic phylogeny,
on the other, an enormous reduction of the supposed gaps between
groups.
.^ Also things are not so clear about the lack of evidence for natural origins of life as you make it out to be.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution likewise can be studied by the evidence left behind, but there every single living thing (and many non-living things as well) bears the stamps of what happened in the past.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And in The Origin itself, his famous "there is grandeur in this view of life" quote spoke of the first life forms having been 'breathed' into existence.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Comparative anatomists have been learning to
refrain from basing the diagnosis of a species, or the description
of the condition of an organ, on the evidence of a single specimen.
.^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution has a long track record of making such successful predictions, including most recently the finding of the Tiktaalik fossil precisely where it was predicted (the type of sediments it would be found in) and when it was predicted (the age of those sediments).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That does not necessarily mean that metaphysical naturalism is true; even those who do not hold to metaphysical naturalism - you know, those thousands of scientists who do believe in the supernatural - still practice methodological naturalism in their work.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Also, if you're going to quote more than one person at a time when you're posting, you need to make it clear who you're quoting, and when.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That does not necessarily mean that metaphysical naturalism is true; even those who do not hold to metaphysical naturalism - you know, those thousands of scientists who do believe in the supernatural - still practice methodological naturalism in their work.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ You know, Paul has such a following because some of the things he says make absolute sense.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The name of Darwin's book was "Origin of the SPECIES".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In other words the last 7 years times 1000.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So there was nothing more for me to add, other than to point out that studies on evolution/morality were and are being performed.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But applying the concepts to physical objects is more messy.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Well, then again, how do you decide which one of these "other means" is the standard to define morality?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Such a condition has been
termed, with regard to the group of animals or plants the organs of
which are being studied,
archecentric. The possession of
the character in the archecentric condition in (say) two of the
members of the group does not indicate that these two members are
more nearly related to one another than they are to other members
of the group; the archecentric condition is part of the common
heritage of all the members of the group, and may be retained by
any.
On the other hand, when the ancestral condition is modified, it may
be regarded as having moved outwards along some
radius from the archecentric condition. Such
modified conditions have been termed
apocentric. It is
obvious that the mere apocentricity of a character can be no guide
to the affinities of its possessor. It is necessary to determine if
the modification be a simple change that might have occurred in
independent cases, in fact if it be a multiradial apocentricity, or
if it involved intricate and precisely combined anatomical changes
that we could not expect to occur twice independently; that is to
say, if it be a uniradial apocentricity. Multiradial
apocentricities lie at the root of many of the phenomena that have
been grouped under the designation
convergence.
Especially in the case of
manifest adaptations, organs possessed by
creatures far apart genealogically may be moulded into conditions
that are extremely alike. Sir E.
Ray
Lankester's term,
homoplasy, has passed into currency as
designating such cases where different genetic material has been
pressed by similar conditions into similar moulds. These may be
called heterogeneous homoplasies, but it is necessary to recognize
the existence of homogeneous homoplasies, here called multiradial
apocentricities. A complex apocentric modification of a kind which
we cannot imagine to have been repeated independently, and which is
to be designated as uniradial, frequently forms a new centre around
which new diverging modifications are produced.
.^ That new ability to observe a whole new form of evidence previously unknown could very well have falsified evolutionary theory; instead, it confirmed our theory perfectly.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In that case "facts" are only valid in an axiomatic framework, i.e., "the set of integers forms a group under multiplication", which is only true given definitions of sets, numbers, and algebraic structures.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Thus, for instance, the archecentric condition of any Avian
structure is a metacentre of the Sauropsidan stem.
.^ It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ The fact that you keep spitting out your evolution theory is pretty sad, cant you get another example?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It is not that any of the theories that form the basis for evolution are necessarily without merit, but they remain, for the most part, as unestablished as their religious counterparts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He was speculating - this was not a hypothesis, it was not part of the Theory of Evolution - it was speculation, labeled as such.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Humans evolved as a social species, which means we naturally live in groups.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It appears that, in many cases, people have simply exchanged one set of faith-based tenants for another.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ I suspect I'll have to check in again to see how these other very basic reminders might have taken to being shot down again!- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ These still massive holes in our knowledge of the universe and of our own existence are a gaping space, and if a person chooses to fill that space with a Creator, I don't think anyone can criticize them until they can posit a more concrete alternative.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Yes, our knowledge of how resistance to antibiotics evolves allows us to create new chemical entities that are still effective.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Of the little iamso910 wrote in his post, he argues from an empirical perspective: "I've studied, and there are many unanswered questions".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I remember many reasons suggested at teh time, but natural selection was not one of them, either from the pro war governments or the people who suggested the had ulterior motives.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ People who have never made a creationist or ID statement get denied tenure and publication all the time because their scholarship is lacking scientific rigor.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Theories don't become laws any more than they become facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Theories do not become facts, they explain facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Yet he apparently thinks that amendments to the Constitution don't become part of the document in spite of the clear fact that they do, as they were originally intended.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution is no longer a theory and has not been for a very long time it is a " Law " much like the law of gravity as an example.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I am very disappointed to learn that Ron Paul does not accept the theory of evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ These are all facts, meaning they are observational data .- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ These are not only two separate steps, they're two entirely different theories.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Theories do not become facts, they explain facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Well, note that I said "a good deal of the research" - and most of the government funded part is basic research that makes the applied research, such as individual drugs, possible.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Humans, being the only species that can consider such things on a rational level rather than acting out of instinct, can make rational choices about such things.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ And many voters are reluctant to vote for someone like Paul who espouses such views.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I know, it does sound ludicrous, but it proves persuasive for those who have no formal education in logic and are undecided.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ No one - absolutely no one - says that On the Origin of Species (not "the" species) is "completely infallible gospel."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ He doesn't come out and say that there's no evolutionary process at work in the world he believes to have been created by "the creator [he] know[s]."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Well since your premise is incorrect, there is no need to attempt to answer your question.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ He was speculating - this was not a hypothesis, it was not part of the Theory of Evolution - it was speculation, labeled as such.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But I do know theories in many fields I do work with.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution doesn't care whether God created bacteria or they formed without assistance over long periods of time; evolution only cares whether those bacteria follow the principles of natural selection, heritable variation, etc.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Evolution likewise can be studied by the evidence left behind, but there every single living thing (and many non-living things as well) bears the stamps of what happened in the past.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If "the theory of evolution" were called "the empirically established paradigm for evolution", it would be harder for people to flippantly dismiss it as "just a theory".- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ So, some 'smartest guy in the world' has a "theory of everything," makes his living as a "weight-lifting bouncer," and promotes 'intelligent design.'- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Try as the ID advocates might to turn themselves into martyrs, the facts just don't back it up.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
BM- Within quite recent years, however, a special school q
Y P has arisen with the main object of treating the processes of
evolution quantitatively. Here it is right to speak of Karl Pearson
as a
pioneer of notable
importance.
.^ Do tell what evolutionary biologist uses the terms "horizontal evolution and vertical evolution" in the way you suggest here?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Because the "ladder of certainty" use of these terms is an artifact of poor science education.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ There is a long history on this sort of interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the economics of stopping an activity in one state merely so that it doesn't lessen the demand for something in that state from other states.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
When an organ is stated to be variable, the biometricist demands
statistics to show the
range of the variations and the mode of their distribution. When a
character is said to be favoured by natural selection, the
biometricist demands investigation of the death-rate of individuals
with or without the character. When a character is said to be
transmitted, or to be correlated with another character, the
biometricist declares the statement valueless without numerical
estimations of the
inheritance or correlation.
.^ Truth is the first order of business, and it's more beautiful than libertarianism dysfunctionally marketed, less likely implemented.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ But it's several orders of magnitude more likely to be true than any other theory we've got.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ But not least of all is the fact that faint traces of lunacy often have a method of being detected in different ways to many different people.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The chief pitfall appears to be the tendency to attach
more meaning to the results than from their nature they can
bear. The ultimate value of numerical
inquiries must depend on the equivalence of the units on which they
are based. Many of the characters that up to the present have been
dealt with by biometrical inquiry are obviously composite.
.^ Science is a pursuit of physically observable fact, but being a creation of man, is no more infallible than man's interpretations of God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That argument should be taken no more seriously than when the geocentrists make the same argument about Copernicus.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Many of these people are scientists or technologists of some kind.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The
analysis of composite characters into their indivisible units and
statistical inquiry into the behaviour of the units would seem to
be a necessary part of biometric investigation, and one to which
much further attention will have to be paid.
.^ Since not all organisms are equally well adapted to their environment, some will survive and reproduce better than others -- this is known as natural selection.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ So if he was asked does he think that its possible for plants and animals DNA to modify itself, he would have a different question to answer then do you believe in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "One of the things I have noted about evolutionists is that they tend to switch their opinions when it comes to the mechanics of the evolutionary transformation process when it is applied to different species.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Whether it came about through one of the many abiogenesis hypotheses being researched, or by god poofing it into existence, or by being transported here by a meteor, the theory of common descent remains absolutely valid.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Theories don't become laws any more than they become facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Science is a pursuit of physically observable fact, but being a creation of man, is no more infallible than man's interpretations of God.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ That argument should be taken no more seriously than when the geocentrists make the same argument about Copernicus.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ But one further point, in math and physics theories do become fact.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Its a fact there are indeed many MD's who don't have a clue about evolution and many who reject it for whatever reasons.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ "I mean, DAMN, the evolution toward Fascism is happening and there is no good in it for anyone but the top 1% of the population.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Evolution likewise can be studied by the evidence left behind, but there every single living thing (and many non-living things as well) bears the stamps of what happened in the past.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Even if it were somehow demonstrated that this could not have happened, it would not change any of the evidence that evolution happened No, therefore it is just a theory, correct?- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Stupid that some of you folks would choose a president based on whether or not he/she believed in evolution.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I wish you guys would do some kind of research on this guy before making snap judgments.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
The conception is necessarily somewhat hazy, but the words
bathmism and
bathmic Evolution have been employed
by a number of writers for some such conception.
.^ In fact I argue that many facets of the contemporary world make a more limited government more rather than less desirable.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ In that case "facts" are only valid in an axiomatic framework, i.e., "the set of integers forms a group under multiplication", which is only true given definitions of sets, numbers, and algebraic structures.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
In its simplest form, this phrase implies such an obvious fact as
that whatever be the future development of, say, existing
cockroaches, it will be on lines determined by the present
structure of these creatures.
.^ We further observe that over time, as new species in that new taxon appear they look less and less like that older species, become more and more diversified and look more and more like the modern members of that taxon.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common (from Wikipedia).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ There are underlying psychological frameworks that sense disruption and to which only people that specialize in that field can determine a responsible and successful answer.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ Evolution, as I have pointed out, has MOUNTAINS of evidence for it, and a hair of evidence against it (I'm playing it safe here - I haven't actually heard of any such evidence on the other side).- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Thirdly, I would like to know why you continually refuse to countenance the idea that atoms make up much bigger things, and those bigger things interact with each other, and that interaction creates things like morality and society and culture.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Much like anything else, I must take each point and each position upon its merits and evaluate it."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "Basically there are 6 types of evolution, 5 are theory and one is fact."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ You seem to ignore my statements and concentrate on an almost religious insistence that theories are facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ If we speak of the ability to cross to a new species then we speak of the theory of evolution which is still very un-proven, and therefor a theory.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
These are discussed under the headings
Heredity;
Mendelism; and
Variation And Selection.
.^ I am as strong a believer in evolution as they come.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Theories do not become facts, they explain facts.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Also look at the FURTHER READINGS, where the major creationist website also agrees that your whole 'fact/theory' discussion is nothing but a red herring: What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically."- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ And the fact that he seems to be the only honest politician who doesn't have to consult polls, his staff, or perform a political cost-benefit analysis of every position he takes.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ It's not as like things are only facts when they are proven or disproven in some absolute sense reserved for mathematics and formal logic.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ I've been an atheist who has been debating (on a non formal basis) religion and evolution for over 20 years.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ But not least of all is the fact that faint traces of lunacy often have a method of being detected in different ways to many different people.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
.^ "Natural selection" is virtually scientific law.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Katie: Scientists may be divided on the mechanisms by which evolution works, but not on the basic principle that sexual selection, natural selection and mutation cause and continue to affect and effect speciation.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Every single argument you make applies to every single scientific theory, yet the only one you apply it to is the one you reject on religious grounds.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
For evolution in relation to society see
Sociology.
REFERENCES. - Practically, every botanical and zoological
publication of recent date has its bearing on evolution.
.^ The Theory of Evolution, as first formed by Darwin, and in its magnificent elucidation since then, does not require one to know anything of biogenesis - in essence, it STARTS with reproducing life forms.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Darwin's work picks up in the middle of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
^ Lee, I agree its more speculation then hypothesis, I only quoted that in relation to Eds request for anything on Darwin hypothesizing on the origin of life.- Ron Paul Rejects Evolution : Dispatches from the Culture Wars 3 February 2010 18:22 UTC scienceblogs.com [Source type: Original source]
Linn. Soc. xx.; Haacke,
Schopfung des Menschen; Mitchell, "
Valuation of Zoological
Characters,"
Trans. Linn. Soc. viii. pt.
7;
Pearson,
Grammar of Science; Romanes,
Darwin and after
Darwin; Sedgwick, Presidential Address to Section Zoology,
Brit. Ass. Rep. 1899; Wallace,
Darwinism;
Weismann,
The Germ-Plasm. Further references of great
value will be found in the works of Bateson and Pearson referred to
above, and in the annual volumes of the
Zoological Record,
particularly under the head " General Subject." (P. C. M.)
Top topics
Wikis
Quiz
Facts
Misc
Series stub
Search
