O******1
发帖数: 13088 | 1 神创论和进化论的矛盾其实是一种“对立统一”的关系。
所谓“对立”，是指看问题的视角不同所产生的分歧。“进化”描述生命出现的过程，
是个手段；而“神创”则是进化过程的内在驱动力，是“信息的引入”，是事物发展的
内因。
所谓“统一”，是指这两个理论阐述了“同一个事件”--生命出现的过程，其区别仅仅
在于观察视角的不同。
正如毛泽东同志曾经说过，“事物的矛盾法则，即对立统一的法则，是唯物辩证法的最
根本的法则。”神创论和进化论恰恰就是矛盾的两个方面，互相依存，不可分割。 | J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | | l**********t
发帖数: 5754 | 3 good point.
God creates the universe (including science) so Christians have no problems
embracing PROVEN scientific theories because science reveals the wonder of
God's creation.
The modern "evolution theory" leaves too much unexplained and relies on
strong assumptions to explain the un-explainable -- how order/complexity are
created through random events?
【在 O******1 的大作中提到】
: 神创论和进化论的矛盾其实是一种“对立统一”的关系。
: 所谓“对立”，是指看问题的视角不同所产生的分歧。“进化”描述生命出现的过程，
: 是个手段；而“神创”则是进化过程的内在驱动力，是“信息的引入”，是事物发展的
: 内因。
: 所谓“统一”，是指这两个理论阐述了“同一个事件”--生命出现的过程，其区别仅仅
: 在于观察视角的不同。
: 正如毛泽东同志曾经说过，“事物的矛盾法则，即对立统一的法则，是唯物辩证法的最
: 根本的法则。”神创论和进化论恰恰就是矛盾的两个方面，互相依存，不可分割。
| J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | 4 Creationist Wisdom #234: Who’s the Moron?
Posted on 21-March-2012 | 11 Comments
We occasionally post about columns written by Ben Bova, a good science
fiction writer, when he discusses The Controversy between evolution and
creationism. He lives in Naples Florida, and sometimes writes for his local
paper, the Naples Daily News: The last time was here: Ben Bova: The Search
For Life’s Origins.
Bova recently wrote The ignorant and their leaders are marching endlessly —
to oblivion , but we didn’t post about it. However, his column triggered
today’s letter-to-the-editor in that newspaper, titled Crossing the line.
It’s delightfully riddled with creationist cliches. We’ll give you a few
excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for
emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay,
here we go:
Ben Bova’s lack of accuracy and truth in his March 18 commentary is
matched only by his arrogance in calling people of faith ignorant. He made
numerous inaccurate statements and is ignorant of the following:
A bold beginning! We can’t wait for the rest:
Although there are many examples of intra-species evolution, there has
never been an instance of interspecies evolution in which, for example, a
cat can become a horse. Charles Darwin wrote that if proof of interspecies
evolution is not eventually found, then his theory fails.
No croco-duck, no cat-dog! Jeepers, he’s right! Let’s read on:
Darwin’s theory has failed for lack of proof, but to Bova and his ilk
belief in evolution has become a false religion requiring greater faith than
a belief in God.
Search your soul, dear reader. Are you among Bova’s ilk? We continue:
Increasingly, respected scientists are realizing only “intelligent
design” satisfactorily explains the origin of the universe. Brilliant
scientists, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Johannes Kepler, James
Prescott Joule, Werner von Braun, Carl Linnaeus, Sir Joseph Lister, Louis
Pasteur, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, and Dr. Taylor (who has authored
over 80 scientific articles) believed in creation and its Creator.
Nice list. Most lived before Darwin. As for the others, none are even 20th
Century, except for von Braun — who was no biologist. We don’t know who
Taylor is, nor do we really care. Here’s more:
To believe that man evolved from primordial ooze is akin to believing
that a fully functioning 747 airplane was created by a hurricane passing
through a junk yard.
Wow — we never heard of that before. (Actually, we have. See Hoyle’s
fallacy.) Here’s one more excerpt from the letter’s end:
Bova was right when he stated: “The morons march on. To their death.”
Only he didn’t realize to whom his statement applied.
We think Bova knew exactly to whom he was referring.
------
have fun
【在 O******1 的大作中提到】
: 神创论和进化论的矛盾其实是一种“对立统一”的关系。
: 所谓“对立”，是指看问题的视角不同所产生的分歧。“进化”描述生命出现的过程，
: 是个手段；而“神创”则是进化过程的内在驱动力，是“信息的引入”，是事物发展的
: 内因。
: 所谓“统一”，是指这两个理论阐述了“同一个事件”--生命出现的过程，其区别仅仅
: 在于观察视角的不同。
: 正如毛泽东同志曾经说过，“事物的矛盾法则，即对立统一的法则，是唯物辩证法的最
: 根本的法则。”神创论和进化论恰恰就是矛盾的两个方面，互相依存，不可分割。
| O******1
发帖数: 13088 | 5 “神”就是推动进化过程的未知力量，整个生命体系的信息指令输入者。
【在 J*****3 的大作中提到】
: 你定义下神创论
| J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | 6 Discovery Institute Gives Us Their Best Argument
Posted on 24-February-2012 | 18 Comments
Things aren’t going very well for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery
Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center
for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign
proponentsists).
At their blog today is this new post by Granville Sewell: Are You Looking
for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? We’ve
written about Sewell before (see Discovery Institute Touts Another Genius).
We won’t spend any time rebutting what Sewell says today, because it’s not
worth the effort. But it’s definitely worth noting that the Discoveroids
think this is their best argument. Sewell starts out quoting something he
wrote earlier. The bold font was added by us:
[I prefer to dwell further on] the much simpler and clearer second point
of my article, which is that the increase in order observed on Earth (and
here alone, as far as we know) violates the laws of probability and the
second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular fashion.
It’s our old friend — so often cited by creationists — the second law of
thermodynamics. Sewell continues quoting himself:
Evolutionists have always dismissed this argument by saying that the
second law of thermodynamics only dictates that order cannot increase in an
isolated (closed) system, and the Earth is not a closed system — in
particular, it receives energy from the Sun. The second law allows order to
increase locally, provided the local increase is offset by an equal or
greater decrease in the rest of the universe.
Yes, that’s right. Then Sewell (still quoting himself) carries things to a
bit of an extreme:
This always seems to be the end of the argument: order can increase (
entropy can decrease) in an open system, therefore, ANYTHING can happen in
an open system, even the rearrangement of atoms into computers, without
violating the second law.
We’ve never heard anyone (except a creationist) make such a claim, but that
’s Sewell’s defense of his Second Law argument. Now let’s give you one
more excerpt from the end. Here, Sewell isn’t quoting himself; he’s
writing in the present:
I still consider this argument to be the simplest and clearest argument
for intelligent design that it is possible to make, and I consider this
video [at the Discoveroid post] to be the simplest and clearest presentation
of this argument I have ever made … . Unfortunately, it seems to be too
simple for many scientists, and generally only appreciated by non-scientists
…and mathematicians.
So there you have it. You’ve seen the very best argument for intelligent
design. If you’re not persuaded now, there’s no hope for you. | J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | 7 科学研究的条件之一就是在自然的环境下，不能有任何超自然的因素，比如神
【在 O******1 的大作中提到】
: “神”就是推动进化过程的未知力量，整个生命体系的信息指令输入者。
| J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | 8 再给你个好玩的，慢慢研究智能设计吧，哈哈
Klinghoffer: Better Things To Do Than Science
Posted on 6-February-2012 | 22 Comments
We often wonder what motivates the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute
‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for
Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign
proponentsists).
For some of their low-level functionaries, it’s probably just a job that
pays the bills. For those at the top, we suspect it’s a raging fury driving
them toward changing the world to a Dark Ages theocracy. But what about
their mid-level people? What about those whose writings we see at their blog
? It can’t be that they’re just earning a paycheck. Some may be genuinely
confused and think they’re working for a cutting-edge science outfit, while
others seem to be committed ideologues.
We certainly can’t figure out David Klinghoffer, whose creationist oeuvre
we last described here, and upon whom the Discoveroids have bestowed the
exalted title of “senior fellow” — i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist.
See what you can make of Klinghoffer’s newest article. It’s titled
Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief. Here are some excerpts,
with bold font added by us and his links omitted:
I wish I worked as efficiently as Wikipedia’s editors. Last week I
noted here [link omitted] that notwithstanding the impressive volume of pro-
ID peer-reviewed publications, by researchers within and outside the
intelligent-design movement, Wikipedia’s article on ID carries the
ridiculously false statement that “The intelligent design movement has not
published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal,” with a
footnote to the six-years-old Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
The “impressive volume of pro-ID peer-reviewed publications”? We assume he
means the undistinguished survey-type articles in mediocre trade journals
or creationist-run publications recently mentioned by the Discoveroids in
posts like this: Our New List of Pro-ID Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers;
50th Paper Published in 2011.
If Klinghoffer is worried about Wikipedia being out of date by referring to
Kitzmiller, what about his creationist colleagues who, by dismissing Darwin,
are at least 150 years behind the times? Well, they’ve updated a bit by
referring to the fantasies resulting from Alfred Wallace’s late-life
dementia. Let’s see what else Klinghoffer says:
Writing us at ENV [the Discoveroids' blog], a reader in South Africa
promptly took it on himself to try to correct the Wiki article and report
back about the results. A worthy gesture, but I could have told him he was
probably wasting his time.
Correcting Wikipedia is a waste of time? Probably so, for “corrections”
attempted by creationists. Let’s read on:
As anyone knows who’s followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites,
Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered
by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day
and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet.
Anonymous bloggers with no responsibilities? We wonder to whom he’s
referring. Let’s continue:
Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references
to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID
scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had
erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the
effect that:
[Klinghoffer's alleged quote from Wikipedia:] The Discovery
Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been
published in peer-reviewed journals…. Critics, largely members of the
scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established
scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather,
intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer
review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent
design supporters.
That seems accurate. By the way, this amusing drama is apparently occurring
in this Wikipedia article: Intelligent design. Here’s more from Klinghoffer:
This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers
would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds
with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate
success. They kept erasing or editing his edits.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Moving along:
It’s pathetic, but also revealing. As I noted at the American Spectator
the other day, Darwinists and other liberals are very big on seeking
sociological or medical explanations for the persistent tendency of most
Americans to “deny science” by doubting Darwinism, politically correct
climate science, and the rest. It tells you something that, in defending
their doctrine at Wikipedia, the Darwinian cause can draw on such an
impressive body of apparently unemployed and socially isolated devotees.
“Darwinists and other liberals”? Well, he’s not speaking about your
Curmudgeon. Another excerpt:
Intelligent design can’t do that. If I had to estimate, based on ample
experience, I would say that the sociology of ID leans far, far more in the
direction of people tied in with other people — work, family, friends — in
other words, with reality.
ID creationists are tied to reality? BWAHAHAHAHA! On with the article:
We don’t live just virtually on the Internet.
But the Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design does live solely on
the internet. One last excerpt:
And so, despite the fact that Darwin-doubting represents a majority view
in American culture as a whole, we can’t muster the needed forces among
the unemployed and isolated to monitor Wikipedia for falsehoods around the
clock. We just don’t have the time. We have other things to do.
Whatever else the Discoveroids may have to do, it doesn’t include turning
up evidence for their magical designer. If they ever did that kind of
research, it would show up in the respected journals — and in Wikipedia. | O******1
发帖数: 13088 | 9 你都从哪收集了这么多东东，文献整理工作做的不错嘛。
Institute
driving
【在 J*****3 的大作中提到】
: 再给你个好玩的，慢慢研究智能设计吧，哈哈
: Klinghoffer: Better Things To Do Than Science
: Posted on 6-February-2012 | 22 Comments
: We often wonder what motivates the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute
: ‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for
: Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign
: proponentsists).
: For some of their low-level functionaries, it’s probably just a job that
: pays the bills. For those at the top, we suspect it’s a raging fury driving
: them toward changing the world to a Dark Ages theocracy. But what about
| O******1
发帖数: 13088 | 10 在这里，我讨论的只是那个推动进化过程的因素，不管是自然因素，或者是超自然因素
。但我肯定的是，这个因素肯定存在，我们可以把它称其为“神”，或者任何别的名称。
【在 J*****3 的大作中提到】
: 科学研究的条件之一就是在自然的环境下，不能有任何超自然的因素，比如神
| J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | 11 科学研究中，是不可以有超自然因素，这个必须明确了。你如果说你的神是BIG BANG
的起点，这个我勉强同意，其他，进化中的哪些因素，你必须说明确。你说明确了，我
才决定是不是伸爪抓你，不过，以后PIA你是免不了的
称。
【在 O******1 的大作中提到】
: 在这里，我讨论的只是那个推动进化过程的因素，不管是自然因素，或者是超自然因素
: 。但我肯定的是，这个因素肯定存在，我们可以把它称其为“神”，或者任何别的名称。
| O******1
发帖数: 13088 | 12 我们把“生命出现以前的无机世界”当成进化这个热力学过程的始态，把“高等生命出
现”看作这个过程的“终态”。 好，在这里，我们不考虑变化快慢的问题，6天也好，
20亿年也罢，这是动力学问题。我们只比较过程的始态和终态，显然终态熵值大大降低
。对，我承认，大自然存在这种情况，可以牺牲环境大幅度熵增来换取体系的熵减从而
创造出“秩序”。但是，以不变的无机物世界存在是不是更稳定呢？并且考虑到，长达
20亿年，整个进化的方向是一个箭头，从低级到高级，从简单到复杂，这背后到底是什
么原因呢？这个原因是未知的，无论是自然的还是超自然的，我称其为“上帝”。
【在 J*****3 的大作中提到】
: 科学研究中，是不可以有超自然因素，这个必须明确了。你如果说你的神是BIG BANG
: 的起点，这个我勉强同意，其他，进化中的哪些因素，你必须说明确。你说明确了，我
: 才决定是不是伸爪抓你，不过，以后PIA你是免不了的
:
: 称。
| J*****3
发帖数: 4298 | 13 你和那些intelligent design的思路差不多，以后不要说承认进化论了，你承认遗传变
异/自然选择吗？不同物种的产生是自然选择的结果，不是耶和华，还有GOD不专只耶和华
【在 O******1 的大作中提到】
: 我们把“生命出现以前的无机世界”当成进化这个热力学过程的始态，把“高等生命出
: 现”看作这个过程的“终态”。 好，在这里，我们不考虑变化快慢的问题，6天也好，
: 20亿年也罢，这是动力学问题。我们只比较过程的始态和终态，显然终态熵值大大降低
: 。对，我承认，大自然存在这种情况，可以牺牲环境大幅度熵增来换取体系的熵减从而
: 创造出“秩序”。但是，以不变的无机物世界存在是不是更稳定呢？并且考虑到，长达
: 20亿年，整个进化的方向是一个箭头，从低级到高级，从简单到复杂，这背后到底是什
: 么原因呢？这个原因是未知的，无论是自然的还是超自然的，我称其为“上帝”。
| O******1
发帖数: 13088 | 14 呵呵，我其实以前没接触过你说的那些intelligent design理论，这是我自己的看法，
如有雷同，纯属巧合。好了，既然谈到遗传变异/自然选择，我想听听你对进化论的理
解。
和华
【在 J*****3 的大作中提到】
: 你和那些intelligent design的思路差不多，以后不要说承认进化论了，你承认遗传变
: 异/自然选择吗？不同物种的产生是自然选择的结果，不是耶和华，还有GOD不专只耶和华
|
|
