tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post112075598543312904..comments2024-01-01T08:18:36.278-05:00Comments on Real Physics: Humble Pie, Baked Not EvolvedLawrence Gagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-90093365332536715382014-07-29T09:18:15.423-04:002014-07-29T09:18:15.423-04:00Schönborn is pretty much too Darwinist, if not in ...Schönborn is pretty much too Darwinist, if not in moral, at least in historical sense.<br /><br />What if <a href="http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html" rel="nofollow">the "evidence" for diverse ages having succeeded each other (geostratichronology or geochronology) is at least as good evidence of diverse biotope types during a flood 2957 BC</a> (or ok, evangelicals place it closer to us, as they do with creation, since using Ussher over St Jerome), <a href="http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html" rel="nofollow">while the radiometric timescale between Cro-Magnon and us can be radically telescoped without absurdity?</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/09/be-my-unwin-or-hooper-if-you-like.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120838674005742232005-07-08T12:04:00.000-04:002005-07-08T12:04:00.000-04:00Thanks MJ,To me, the facts and history speak for t...Thanks MJ,<BR/><BR/>To me, the facts and history speak for themselves, but in my circles, I am still swimming upstream because so many of my friends are thinking with their heart and not their head when it comes to aiding Africa.David M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15720778073616293157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120835934922998552005-07-08T11:18:00.000-04:002005-07-08T11:18:00.000-04:00Ah, I understand: a "geographic time-warp" factor....Ah, I understand: a "geographic time-warp" factor. :)<BR/><BR/>Geography doesn't apply to the Catholic Church as it does to other Churches. The Catholic Church transcends geography, hence the name "catholic" (i.e., universal). That means there is more unity of belief and teaching (perfect unity when discipline is good) than for other, locally based denominations.<BR/><BR/>Hope that makes some sociological sense of your experience.<BR/><BR/>MJ<BR/><BR/>P.S. I've been admiring <A HREF="http://metalofheaven.blogspot.com/2005/07/expert-advice-on-africa.html" REL="nofollow">your posts of late on Africa</A>. Keep up the good work! MJLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120834893620163812005-07-08T11:01:00.000-04:002005-07-08T11:01:00.000-04:00Hi MJ,Think Bible Belt 1965; evolution may have be...Hi MJ,<BR/><BR/>Think Bible Belt 1965; evolution may have been passé in the Northeast, but it was fairly radical in Arkansas.David M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15720778073616293157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120784912934458202005-07-07T21:08:00.000-04:002005-07-07T21:08:00.000-04:00Was evolution ahead of the times in the 1960's? I...Was evolution ahead of the times in the 1960's? I thought the theory had been around for quite a while, and been taught in schools since the 1950's, at latest.<BR/><BR/>The 1960's was a decade in which Catholics were trying to assimilate by proving that they were good secular Americans, just like everyone else (witness JFK's foreswearing Roman influence). So it makes sense that they would teach evolution with a covert's zeal, so to speak. (Desire to assimilate was also one major reason behind the collapse of Church discipline in the wake of the Council.)<BR/><BR/>I recall hearing recently that Catholic schools are still far behind the times and (sadly) teaching evolution. Still trying to make that square peg fit in the round hole....<BR/><BR/>MJLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120773420955299612005-07-07T17:57:00.000-04:002005-07-07T17:57:00.000-04:00Hi MJ,I attended a Catholic grade school back in t...Hi MJ,<BR/><BR/>I attended a Catholic grade school back in the 1960’s. I remember evolution being taught in every science class. I even remember an over-emphasis on evolution. Maybe it’s just a bad memory. It makes me laugh because Catholics are always considered to be behind the times, but we were way ahead of the times back in the 60’s. I wonder if Catholic schools are teaching ID now. Anyone know?David M. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15720778073616293157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120767848237744982005-07-07T16:24:00.000-04:002005-07-07T16:24:00.000-04:00Craig,Thanks for your compliments. You make some ...Craig,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your compliments. You make some good points, but I'm not sure you've considered all the data.<BR/><BR/>Consider Darwin's eugenic statements as, for example, in this post: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/whos-monkey_16.html" REL="nofollow">Who's the Monkey?</A> (June 16)<BR/><BR/>Morally reprehensible statements of this are not isolated, but are of one piece with <BR/><A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/03/darwinian-creed.html" REL="nofollow">The Darwinian Creed</A> (March 31). Here you'll also discover <I>whose</I> reaction is knee-jerk (see also "Whose Covert Religion?", linked below).<BR/><BR/>If you can excuse some friendly ribbing, I think your conclusion is ironic, as I describe in my April-24 post on American political parties: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/04/social-darwinists-all.html" REL="nofollow">Social Darwinists All?</A>.<BR/><BR/>MJ<BR/><BR/>P.S. Here are some other posts on Darwinism and related topics:<BR/><BR/>Feb 23: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/02/super-natural-selection.html" REL="nofollow">"Super-Natural Selection"</A><BR/>April 26: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/04/real-thomas-malthus.html" REL="nofollow">The Real Thomas Malthus</A><BR/><B>June 2: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/thank-god-for-darwinian-inquisition.html" REL="nofollow">Thank God for the Darwinian Inquisition!</A></B><BR/><B>June 4: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/whose-covert-religion.html" REL="nofollow">Whose Covert Religion?</A></B><BR/>June 6: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/sagan-sez.html" REL="nofollow">Sagan Sez</A><BR/>June 10: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/democrats-darwin-award.html" REL="nofollow">The Democrats' Darwin Award</A><BR/><B>June 14: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/darwinian-jihad.html" REL="nofollow">Darwinian Jihad</A></B><BR/>June 16: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/unintelligent-design.html" REL="nofollow">Unintelligent Design</A><BR/>June 24: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/lighter-side-of-darwinian-struggle.html" REL="nofollow">The Lighter Side of the Darwinian Struggle</A><BR/><B>June 30: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/worthwhile-evolution-posts.html" REL="nofollow">Worthwhile [external] Evolution Posts</A></B><BR/><BR/><BR/>This series critically examines universal Intelligent Design arguments:<BR/><BR/>June 24: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/review-of-privileged-planet.html" REL="nofollow">Review of The Privileged Planet</A><BR/>June 27: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/habitability-and-measurability.html" REL="nofollow">Habitability and "Measurability"</A><BR/>June 29: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/06/can-you-bind-chains-of-pleiades.html" REL="nofollow">Can You Bind the Chains of the Pleiades?</A><BR/><B>July 1: <A HREF="http://realphysics.blogspot.com/2005/07/nothing-comes-from-nothing.html" REL="nofollow">Nothing Comes from Nothing</A></B><BR/>MJ<BR/><BR/>P.P.S. After reviewing my previous posts, I see I need to add some of these links to the body of the present post. MJLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1120764721449380812005-07-07T15:32:00.000-04:002005-07-07T15:32:00.000-04:00In mild defense of Darwin, I would comment that Da...In mild defense of Darwin, I would comment that Darwin is only saying that from the viewpoint of the objective observer, evolution appears to be random and chaotic. There may well be an underlying structure that becomes apparent over a (sometimes very lengthy) period of time, but from the disinterested rationalist perspective, it would be unseemly to say that there is an overweening purpose immediately apparent. <BR/><BR/>The more radical neos- like Gould et al put their atheist spin on Darwin by saying that evolution HAS to be random (mainly because according to their worldview there is no God), and now the ID folks are trying to spin the core of Darwin's argument to the deist side by saying that evolution HAS to have a purpose. <BR/><BR/>I actually find the entire thing rather smilar to the arguments that Catholics have over "economic justice". All agree that the poor should be helped (or at least regarded) as that is a core element of Church teaching and Christ's preaching. However, the conservatives think the poor can be helped through encouraging independence (often by cutting funding) and through shifting charity to the private sector, while the liberals feel that the poor are best helped by direct subsidies generated through taxation and public sector efforts. <BR/><BR/>IMO, the actual solution is not clear cut in either of these related debates. It is easy to find arguments and experts aplenty to support all sides, ID vs randomists, subsidence advocates versus welfare state enthusiasts. At the core though (to me at least) is the truth: evolution is the best explanation we have of many phenomena, and we are called on to help the poor. We must separate core principle from the "spin" attached to it by later interpreters in both cases, or we risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In other words, if we get annoyed at the random emphasis of the neo-Darwinists and "throw out" evolution, I fear we will be rejecting useful knowledge because of an unnecessarily broad kneejerk reaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com