tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post4154626654910126776..comments2023-09-16T09:31:23.577-04:00Comments on Please be patient, I am evolving as fast as I can!: In response to a commentTed Herrlichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-44302078532330839532010-07-19T20:52:53.370-04:002010-07-19T20:52:53.370-04:00Please refer to one more post, Rory. I really dis...Please refer to one more post, Rory. I really dislike the limit on responses.Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-12106695563631463342010-07-19T08:36:16.256-04:002010-07-19T08:36:16.256-04:00Dear Ted,
Thanks for your comments and rebuttal. ...Dear Ted,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments and rebuttal. We can agree to disagree.<br /><br />If you read my article, you probably noted that <i>The Wall Street Journal</i> article I quoted said:<br /><br /><i>“Scientists ... often change their minds when they see new evidence. I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal 'Nature'. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God — and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”</i><br /><br />Jim Holt, <i>Science Resurrects God, The Wall Street Journal</i>, December 24, 1997, Dow Jones & Co.<br /><br />This was based on a poll published in <i>Nature</i> by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, <i>"Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith,"</i> Nature 386 (1997): 435; and Larry Witham, <i>"Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution,"</i> Washington Times, April 11, 1997, p. A8. Edward J. Larson is an American historian and legal scholar. He is University Professor of history and holds the Hugh & Hazel Darling Chair in Law at Pepperdine University, he was formerly Herman E. Talmadge Chair of Law and Richard B. Russell Professor of American History at the University of Georgia.<br /><br />The <i>Nature</i> article can be referenced on Nature's site at <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v386/n6624/abs/386435a0.html" rel="nofollow">Scientists are Still Keeping the Faith</a>.<br /><br />I also quoted <i>Science</i>, which is the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States. Its August 1997 issue featured an article entitled <i>Science and God: A Warming Trend?</i> which said:<br /><br /><i>“The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life — such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars — also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.”</i> <br /><br /><i>Science Digest</i> reported:<br /><br /><i>"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities ... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."</i><br /><br />Larry Hatfield, <i>“Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special</i> (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.<br /><br />The <i>Union of Concerned Scientists</i>, the leading nonprofit science advocacy group, says:<br /><br /><i>"The growing strength of the movement to discredit evolution and promote the teaching of intelligent design and other non science-based views of biological diversity in public science classrooms is of great concern. Please see the UCS position statement on this alarming trend."</i><br /><br />Ref. <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/science-evolution-and.html" rel="nofollow">Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design</a><br /><br />Regarding your comment on 'quote mining', this a typical accusation by those who simply don't want valid but revealing information exposed that damages their position, but have no other rationalization to dismiss it. The definition of 'quote mining' includes distortion of intended meaning of those quoted, which does not occur in this case. It is perfectly valid to quote anyone as long as intended meaning is conveyed accurately. There is no quote mining, distortion or misinformation in the article.<br /><br />I hope people will take the time to check the sources I quote, which will simply verify I quoted them accurately. It's pretty obvious from the abundance of quotes that the context and conclusion is clear, and there is no possible distortion. These kinds of false accusations come with the territory on this issue, unfortunately.<br /><br />The considered testimony of many eminent scientists I quoted remains clear and consistent, and should not be lightly dismissed.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />RoryRory Roybalhttp://www.miraclesormagic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-45893674792605839612010-07-17T08:00:38.703-04:002010-07-17T08:00:38.703-04:00Ted said ... I have also heard that a number of Yo...Ted said ... <i>I have also heard that a number of Young Earth Creationist groups are questioning their associatation with the DI because the DI still refuses to address their main concern over the age of the Earth.</i><br /><br />I don't see much YEC concern, if any, about the DI's refusal to address Earth's age. Explicitly YEC organizations are more concerned with the DI's hesitance to explicitly name God as the guiding intelligence, as part of DI policy.<br /><br />That said, YECs use DI-related materials without apparent hesitation. And let's not forget that YECs really do constitute a significant chunk of DI supporters, even at the highest levels.rubblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-72258362485173190142010-07-16T09:53:21.907-04:002010-07-16T09:53:21.907-04:00I like the point about pub med. You can do a searc...I like the point about pub med. You can do a search on the most arcane aspects of evolutionary theory - like tree frog toes for example and come up with more research than the entire 20 year output of the ID community. They're not supressed - they're not even trying.scriptohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899049404620738944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-72490451751998788532010-07-16T09:42:46.201-04:002010-07-16T09:42:46.201-04:00Some days I feel that way too, but since Rory was ...Some days I feel that way too, but since Rory was kind enough to give me a link to his self-authored ID document, I figured I would take another look and see if there is any evidence of the trend he spoke of. So far nothing!<br /><br />I was tempted to ask about the 'one-way trend' idea. Was he stating that there were no scientists going from ID proponent to anti-ID? If so I think he is further from the truth. One example -- Michael Denton, who wrote the book that got Phillip E. Johnson's attention has changed gears and is no longer a supporter of ID -- even though many still reference his book. <br /><br />So not only is there no evidence scientists are changing their mind and supporting ID, there is evidence that at least one major supporter left the camp. He's not the only one.<br /><br />I have also heard that a number of Young Earth Creationist groups are questioning their associatation with the DI because the DI still refuses to address their main concern over the age of the Earth. While that wouldn't remove them from the Creationist camp, it would certainly start the DI's 'Big Tent' approach being folded. Only time will tell.Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-43847663994709543832010-07-16T08:38:13.436-04:002010-07-16T08:38:13.436-04:00"Actually, an increasingly large percentage o...<i>"Actually, an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life"</i><br /><br />Where are these scientists?<br /><br /><i>I dunno. They were here a second ago.</i><br /><br />What have they done to test the idea of Intelligent Design?<br /><br /><i> Uh, I dunno. Some sort of science, I guess. They're scientists, you know. With science degrees.</i>scriptohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899049404620738944noreply@blogger.com