Peanut Gallery - AronRa/Enyart - Phylogeny

[DepricatedZero]

That opener was pretty well argued, actually. I'm eager to see AronRa's response, this should be good.

Might actually have a good, interesting debate for once.

We shall see!

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

That opener was pretty well argued, actually. I'm eager to see AronRa's response, this should be good.

What does Bob's opener have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Newton seems to be invoking a "god of the gaps" kind of argument. It's interesting that Bob brought up an invocation of god's power that was later shown to be unnecessary by Einstein and Big Bang cosmology. I'm also amused that he linked to a Wikipedia article that undercuts just about everything he says. It suggests a level of selective blindness that's so high that it effectively has to be deliberate.

 

[brettpalmer]

I guess after AronRa points out BobEnyart's poor reading comprehension...

Bob also doesn't use his "listening ears" very well. He has a tendency to misrepresent people's points (the reason I will never agree to appear on his dog and pony radio show). He did the same thing to Michael Shermer. You can see my analysis at the 15:25 minute mark in the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeBbKdQjDfw

And, Enyart's point in misrepresenting Shermer was just as irrelevant as his current hang up on Newton with Aron.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Having had a look at Mr. Enyart's post, I'd like to make a few observations.

Newton, as he claims, would be a Creationist - as would Darwin and all those who came before the theory of evolution was put forward.

Even the majority of those soon after Darwin's theory was published would still be counted as Creationists: the theory of evolution only addressed speciation, not the origins of life.

The problem - as I see it - is that both Aron and Mr. Enyart are talking past each other.

Mr. Enyart quotes Aron's definition of Creationist:

I defined creationists as those who reject evolution specifically and methodological naturalism in general, defying the scientific method in favor of a magical creation instead.

Aron's definition of Creationist - although not explicitly stated - implicitly refers to those who reject a naturalistic explanation in today's day and age - not to those in the past.

Mr. Enyart is treating Aron's definition as if it does not OR he is using his own generic definition - that the term applies to anyone (including those in the past) who adhered/adheres to a supernatural cause for the cosmos.

I think that Mr. Enyart needs to acknowledge that he has either misinterpreted Aron's definition - whether by accident or intent - or clarify to which definition they are to agree upon.

Secondly, in responding to Aron - "not to directly refute your claim" - Mr. Enyart uses a number of disputed statistics.

Aron's Subtle Appeal to Authority:
Some points in your first foundational video were essentially an appeal to authority that you never identified as such. You agreed that our interview could begin by talking about honest inquiry, so I thought your appeal was at least worthy of a counterclaim. You stated, "There is a complete consensus among scientists all over America"¦ that evolution is the backbone of modern biology"¦" I responded, not to directly dispute your claim, but to offer some contrasting evidence to your appeal to authority, that:

- A large percent of U.S. doctors reject strict Darwinism including 34% who prefer intelligent design
- Scores of prominent scientists like leading Cornell geneticist (emeritus) developer of the Gene Gun, John Sanford, who wrote Genetic Entropy, reject Darwinism, and
- Many of the greatest fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, were special creationists.

According to a Wiki article on the ICR's misinformation campaigns related to the first statistic, the percentage of U.S. doctors is actually 0.02%:

The American Medical Association estimates that in 2006, there were more than 884,000 physicians in the United States. In addition, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that in May 2003 the US had 97,090 dentists, 63,780 opticians, 22,740 optometrists and 43,890 veterinarians.

Therefore, the total number of US professionals in the fields represented by the "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" Dissent petition is at least 1,111,500. That is, the 224 US signatories of the statement represent approximately 0.02% of the total number of US professionals in these fields.

Similarly, claiming that "scores of prominent scientists" reject "Darwinism" - to whatever that is supposed to specifically refer - does not hold water either:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for evolution in the science community. One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there were substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation". This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. Skeptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation supporters is misleading since it includes five people with PhDs in engineering, three in education, two in theology, two in biochemistry, one in physics, one in chemistry, one in hydrology, one in entomology, one in psycholinguistics, one in food science technology, one in ecology, one in physiology and one in geophysics; and therefore only a small minority had qualifications related to evolutionary biology.

Most importantly, whether in reference to the scientific community, or the medical profession in particular:

To date however [DG - as of 2006], there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed.

Regardless of the above, I think that the sooner the matter of what definition of "Creationist" is being used, the better.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody, Bob's first post is not in reply to Aron's thread here, but to the radio show they did.

Anyone with eyes can see that. However, let me remind you and BobEnyart that the debate is supposed to be about phylogeny:

YesYouNeedJesus[/url]"]This thread will be exclusively for AronRa and Bob Enyart to discuss phylogeny.

Thus, I agree with brettpalmer; it seems BobEnyart is trying to score gotcha points against AronRa.

YesYouNeedJesus, have you read the section I quoted from AronRa yet? That section alone exposes BobEnyart's poor scholarship and lack of understanding about phylogeny. BobEnyart's posturing about Newton only comes off as him delaying the inevitable refutation of everything he thinks he knows.

 

[Dustnite]

Isn't this debate about the Phylogeny Challenge? Why is Bob talking about Issac Newton.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting discussion to get into and I have read some of Newton's passion for finding hidden messages in the bible and how he learned the original Aramaic to interpret original scriptures as well as his disbelief in the Trinity. He mentioned the Darwin's tree of life being borrowed from Moses (I'm assuming from Book of Moses?) which even if it were true means practically nothing about or says anything about what exactly the phylogeny tree is actually suppose to be.

So here's my question. The opening made here says nothing about phylogeny, current theory, and nothing about the subject at hand. Is this a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the discussion right out of the gate? I can only assume that is the intent since the entire post is focused entirely on WWND (What Would Newton Do?).

You know why you find early scientists that personally believed in special creation? (I know you will like this because having context when reading the bible is very important...) There was no evidence to the contrary to suggest some other conclusion at the time! YAY CONTEXT. Most rational people are not going to presuppose the conclusion and rather let the evidence lead them to the answer. The answer might not be the one that you personally want or offends your belief, but hey reality doesn't really give a flip about what is offensive to your personal belief system.

And if the tone of this post sounds irritated, it's because to me personally you have just insulted the intelligence of every reader on this forum by not actually writing about the subject at hand. Not really earning any points here...

 

[brettpalmer]

BobEnyart's posturing about Newton only comes off as him delaying the inevitable refutation of everything he thinks he knows.

Bob wants to be able to crow that he was able to get an atheist to "admit" something in his own favor. He tried to do that with Michael Shermer when he asked Michael if he would agree the Bible was "correct" in stating the sun was a light and not a god. Shermer didn't bite but that didn't stop Enyart from dragging around that corpse of Shermer (misquoted) as saying, "The sun is not a light" ever since he and Bob had their discussion. While Enyart didn't get what he wanted (Shermer "admitting" cosmological accuracy in Genesis [snicker!]), he nonetheless got something else he thought he could use (disingenuously) against atheists.

My suspicion is that Bob is trying to do the same thing here. On his radio show over the past number of weeks, he's been snickering at AronRa about something to do with mammoth tusks. He's just trying to get Aron to say, "Newton was a creationist" (or some facsimile) so he can go around saying he got an evolutionist to admit some big names in Science are on HIS side.

Remember, this isn't a quest for knowledge for Bob. It's a chance to win debate points and get "sound bytes" he can use against his opponents. Forgive me if I don't trust him farther than I could throw an elephant (or maybe I should say, farther than I could throw a woolly mammoth! Those with ears, let them hear!).

 

[Prolescum]

Well that was... irrelevant.

Can't wait to read what Mr Enyart's views on toffee are.

 

[WarK]

Well that was... irrelevant.

Can't wait to read what Mr Enyart's views on toffee are.

I guess it depends greatly on what Newton's view on toffee was.

 

[Prolescum]

One would hope he enjoyed it with an apocryphal apple.

In which case, it's similar to every other creationist.

 

[Gnug215]

Why?

Why, why... why??

Why is Newton an issue?

 

[australopithecus]

Because Bob knows he can't refute any of Aron's points on phylogeny so his opening gambit is to completely ignore the topic of the agreed debate and try and find fault with any issue where he can make it look like he's out-witted a godless heathen.

Newton was a creationist. Understandable given evolutionary theory was over 100 into his future. It doesn't lend any credence to creationism anymore than it would to try and supplant atomic theory because Newton was an alchemist.

Can Bob please address something to do with biology now?

 

[brettpalmer]

Why?

Why, why... why??

Why is Newton an issue?

Because Bob knows he can't refute any of Aron's points on phylogeny so his opening gambit is to completely ignore the topic of the agreed debate and try and find fault with any issue where he can make it look like he's out-witted a godless heathen.

Fercryin'outloud, isn't that what I already said? Are my posts hidden from everyone else?

 

[australopithecus]

It was a cover version. Your reply was artistically superior but mine was a rehashed effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator (Gnug ).

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Why?

Why, why... why??

Why is Newton an issue?

From a strict analogy standpoint? From a sales and/or marketing standpoint?

Will you guys grant me a little creative license with analogy?

Force? Momentum?

I think the one, two punch of Bob and his helper should tell us something interesting..... Where do you think he is trying to move this debate? Radioactivity and using this topic as an 'atomic' clock? Methinks, I see where this could be headed......

I will just pick out a nice warm cozy spot in the corner and wait for this to unravel.

I know, I know, I'm probably taking it a bit too far but I think I have seen this type of tactic used before.......

That reminds me of something that happened in Japan not too long ago.......

If a certain local area doctor or one his 'followers' are looking in, I will simply post.......

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#c4

 

[brettpalmer]

It was a cover version. Your reply was artistically superior but mine was a rehashed effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator (Gnug ).

Ah....now I understand! I was beginning to feel like chopped liver!


Basically, (not to beat a dead horse) what Bob wants to do with his appeal to Newton and his stance toward "special creation" is what many apologists do when trying to defend their Bibles. In order to "prove" the validity of Scripture, they will point to the Hittites mentioned in the Old Testament, or some other such historically verifiable tid-bit from the Bible, and then claim that because the Bible got this little detail right, the whole thing is right in everything it asserts! See that mention of Moses? Why, that's an EGYPTIAN name! Therefore the Exodus really happened and upwards of 3 million Hebrews (and assorted others) vacated the land of Egypt c.1440/1250 BCE! Hallelujah! Did you know the biblical book of Genesis mentions the sun as a light and not a god, as every other ancient Near Eastern culture believed in those days? That proves the authors were divinely inspired by an omniscient being with an accurate cosmology! Proof that God is real! See here where it talks about Pontius Pilate? Well, they discovered that name etched into an old Roman block of limestone back in 1961! Therefore, Jesus really lived, really was the Son of God, was resurrected and you'll burn in hell if you don't believe it! Praise the Lord! They are the kings of the non sequitur.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

That opener was pretty well argued, actually. I'm eager to see AronRa's response, this should be good.

Might actually have a good, interesting debate for once.

We shall see!

Agreed! I still predict Aron will not be able to bring himself to admit he was wrong, but I will be incredibly impressed if he does! So far my experience on this site is completely different than other atheist/evolutionist sites I've participated in. People are much nicer, friendlier and honest. Thanks!

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Wow. Just... wow.

Bob and his little crony must be here to practice their selective reading skills. That's the only explanation I can think of.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Anyone with eyes can see that. However, let me remind you and BobEnyart that the debate is supposed to be about phylogeny:
Aron claimed in the show that Newton did not reject methodological naturalism. Since Newton believed in Adam & Eve, that will be a tough position to defend!

Thus, I agree with brettpalmer; it seems BobEnyart is trying to score gotcha points against AronRa.

YesYouNeedJesus, have you read the section I quoted from AronRa yet? That section alone exposes BobEnyart's poor scholarship and lack of understanding about phylogeny. BobEnyart's posturing about Newton only comes off as him delaying the inevitable refutation of everything he thinks he knows.

It may be inevitable. If so, only Aron is the one holding the inevitable up!