Evidence for God from Science

Yes Tootin, but that article is not from this website.

tootin wrote:

"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.

Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted."

August

Compare with this board's own unbiased purpose:

"This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people. Therefore, this message board is intended to reflect that spirit--serving as a place where sincere seekers can ask questions, and where faithful Christians can receive encouragement and instruction. This board is not for those who have already decisively made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to debate and argue against Christianity, ignoring any and all reasons presented. Therefore, those who are Christian or haven't made up their minds are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged."

The bias of TalkReason actually isn't the main reason I would question it. The reason, in my case, would be the stupid reasoning in the TalkReason articles I have taken the time to read. After about four or five, I decided it wasn't worth my time.

The bias of TalkReason actually isn't the main reason I would question it.

True, but in my opinion you always have to understand the worldview of those that are trying to refute you. It explains much about their motives, and subsequent arguments.

The article that our friend 'tootin' referred to did not address any of the core arguments in the original article, it merely asserted that Doolittle was misrepresented. Such a weak assertion can only be attributed to bias, and highlights the lack of factual refutation.

August wrote:True, but in my opinion you always have to understand the worldview of those that are trying to refute you. It explains much about their motives, and subsequent arguments.

Certainly. I was just pointing out that my previous experience reading TalkReason raised serious doubts as to its credibility.

August wrote:The article that our friend 'tootin' referred to did not address any of the core arguments in the original article, it merely asserted that Doolittle was misrepresented. Such a weak assertion can only be attributed to bias, and highlights the lack of factual refutation.

Makes sense.

August wrote:

The article that our friend 'tootin' referred to did not address any of the core arguments in the original article, it merely asserted that Doolittle was misrepresented. Such a weak assertion can only be attributed to bias, and highlights the lack of factual refutation.

The author of the TalkReason article presents and assesses the material and history of Behe v Doolittle. His conclusion is the more commendable for its restrained wording. He judges Behe to have mischaracterised Doolittle.
Misrepresentation can be unintended and trivial; it can also be calculated and malicious. The material is all there on the TalkReason site for anyone who is interested. You may judge for yourself whether or not Behe has misrepresented Doolittle, and the possible nature and degree of misrepresentation involved. True it is going to cost some time and hard brain work sifting all the material, but if you are not prepared to do that then I should warn you that August's views are biased assertions having no relation to any fact.

nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.

Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
Quote - August

August, why did you not cite this quote's origin - Charles Colson at http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/3746.article - when you put it in your opening post?
It is merely an absurd assertion which contradicts all the facts.

Hi tootin,

This is getting a bit inane, don't you think? All you have done so far is level accusations and ad hominems, and provided a single link to a biased website. You can assert all you like, like you did from your very first post here, but asserting and reasserting does make anything you say true, or your case stronger. Your continued referral to a website that clearly acknowledges its bias casts doubts on what you continue to assert. How can you intellectually believe that you will get an objective opinion from Talkreason, when a part of their stated objective is to deny that there may be any truth in anything but the ToE? How is that a scientifically sound position? I have read several accounts of the issue in question, and the Talkreason version seems to be spin and damage control, more than trying to prove that Behe's original argument about IC in bloodclotting was wrong.

but if you are not prepared to do that then I should warn you that August's views are biased assertions having no relation to any fact.

That is for you to prove.

I would however encourage everyone to read several accounts of the issue to form an opinion, not only the version that our friend refers to. Please do read the Talkreason article too, since I agree with tootin that everyone should form their own opinion based on as much information as is available.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefen ... ascade.htm
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=1214
http://www.thebatt.com/media/paper657/n ... 5865.shtml

August, why did you not cite this quote's origin - Charles Colson at http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/3746.article - when you put it in your opening post?

From my opening post:
"This article appeared in Christianity today. It offers some interesting observatons regarding evolution, and the mounting crisis in that theory, as well as the larger issue of how this is starting to hold back science as a whole.

Enjoy, and debate, I'm sure."

As you can see, I did quote the source, the magazine Christianity Today. That it appeared on other websites is quite likely. I also saw that the article was controversial, and invited debate.

I was not present, so I cannot vouch for the authenticity of what was said in private between the professors. Doolittle himself did admit that he had made a mistake, and said as much in his e-mail. On that note, are you aware of any further public statements by Doolittle himself on this issue? We saw the Cassone statements, as well as defences by Ken Miller et al, but I have not been able to find anything by Doolittle himself, apart from the partly quoted e-mail on Talkreason. I find it interesting that Doolittle himself is not jumping to his own defense.

It is merely an absurd assertion which contradicts all the facts.

So is it your position that all the facts are known, and by making this statement, that you know all the facts?

My position is clear, I don't think that the ToE accounts for all we see in nature, and that some things are best explained by an intelligent cause. I also believe that that cause is the Christian God. I also posit cannot know everything there is to know, and as we continue on this wonderful journey called life, we keep on growing spiritually and intellectually. As with most people, my belief system determines my position, and if that is seen as bias, then I would think everyone is biased.

August, you do nothing else than make unsubstantiated assertions. I have supplied a site where people can access information upon which to make their own judgements. Your statement that the TalkReason article is just an assertion is patent nonsense as it goes into the Behe v Doolittle debate in detail. I shall check out your alternative sources. At least you are now supplying some kind of basis to check your assertions against.

nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.

Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
Quote - August

I owe you an apology. You did cite a source for your first post. My mistake. However if that was the complete article which you posted, then the above statement from it was asserted without any backing evidence. The lines in bold are the critical ones. They imply that Doolittle accepted that he had been wrong in his major point of demonstrating that the bloodclotting cascade cannot be irreducibly complex. That is completely misleading. What he accepted was that he had overstated an incidental point in his summary of the paper. In no way did he accept that the paper supported Behe.

I have checked your 3 sources. The first two are contained within the TalkReason article. The third is not relevant to Behe v Doolittle. You dismiss the article without apparently having made a studious reading of it; or did you just select the links there which support your prejudice? You supply no more information in these 3 links, pertinent to this specific issue than is present in the TalkReason article.