Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin/Chicago 2009 Video Talks Available

arroba Email

For anyone interested in current evolutionary thinking, the Darwin/Chicago 2009 conference has posted their video talks online. I haven’t had a chance to watch any, but many of them look interesting.

There's a short article in the latest issue of NewScientist about Mark Hauser. It appears an investigation of some sort has been going on for three years now. If he turns out to have published fraudulent lab results---which is hinted at---what does this say for the great Darwinist regard for peer-reviewed journals? PaV
CY: Amply demonstrating the inherent and destructive amorality of evolutionary materialism, as has been pointed out at least since Plato's The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC: ______________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. >> ______________________ After Nietzsche and co why should we be surprised? We need to make it very clear that when one resorts to distractions, distortions and blame the victim slander tactics, it shows you to be a willful deceiver and an enabler of injustice. For shame! But then, it's 1979 II . . . these folks seemingly don't realise they have reached high-water mark in their grand charge and as they go to ever more outrageous extremes, more and more people are going to wake up, rise up and act up, declaring that enough is enough. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
Will they ever make Marc Hauser's lecture "From Where do Morals Come? NOT Religion!"available? I don't believe so. Reason? http://harvardmagazine.com/harvard-in-the-news/marc-hauser-reaction Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
Thanks, Johnnyb Some of the usual suspects here. Eugenie Scott's presentation was interesting. Her talk was "What would Darwin say to Present-Day Creationists?" She basically set up a number of strawmen, which she effortlessly knocked down - starting with Darwin's deathbed confession, as if all we nasty Darwin doubters hold it as sacred text. She's so good. Then she attacked "Expelled" and anything else that ties Darwinism with Nazism. But before getting to the Nazism part she was careful to point out that all of the Darwinists interviewed in the film (including her) were also atheists; which to her is a shameless example of anti-atheist rhetoric. And then she flatly dismissed the main claim of the film, charging that Gonzalez, Crocker and Sternberg had other skeletons in their closets, which led to their expulsions. The proof of course is on her website. Then she claimed that ID is a subset of Special Creationism - and she showed proof. It's a drawing of a large circle, which represents Special Creationism, with a smaller circle, which represents ID inside the larger circle. Then she went after the term "Darwinism." Eugenie, I might stop calling you a Darwinist when you stop calling ID Creationism. Then she went after the silly geocentrists - when in actual fact she was supposed to be discussing Creationism. She did mention that very few Creationists actually believe in geocentrism, which must of course be why she mentioned it. Then she went after Ray Comfort for no apparent reason. He's a Christian apologist and not a scientist. Hmmmm. Well, apparently she did this because Comfort plans to (or already has) distribute(d) thousands of copies of an annotated version of Darwin's "Origin." Her nifty response to this is to give her followers bookmarks in the shape of a banana to place in the book where Darwin's truth begins and Comfort's "lies" end, with the banana facing Comfort. They came up with this idea, because they didn't feel that raising hell would be appropriate. I'd like to get a hold of Comfort's version of "Origin of Species" as well as the banana bookmark and place the bookmark with the banana facing Darwin's work, just as a protest. Maybe Eugenie will raise hell after that. But the part I found most inciteful (no, not insightful) was when she claimed that evolutionists are not interested in indoctrinating children. She did such a good job of indoctrinating her audience, why would she make a special exception for children? Oh, BTW, what would Darwin actually say to modern day Creationists according to Eugenie Scott?: "You idiots, how could you have missed all the evidence?" or something to that effect. CannuckianYankee
I loaded this excerpt of a video of Michael Behe last night: Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design http://www.metacafe.com/w/5066181 bornagain77

Leave a Reply