It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:16 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4874
Location: Firmly on this earth
Doctor Scratch wrote:
It seems that he's resurrecting all the old gambits. And, in actuality, he *does not* want anyone to read the book. Down in the comments, one poster claimed to have read it, at which point DCP immediately declared that he was too busy to have a discussion about it. Honestly, I sincerely doubt that DCP read the book himself. Maybe he read the first few pages that are shown to you for free on Amazon, but as was demonstrated in--IIRC--one of the plagiarism threads, he often tends to quote from just the first few pages of any given book--like he reads the first dozen pages, skims the rest, and then calls it a day.

:lol:
After reading the last book ( a historical Jesus book) that Peterson recommended, I have my serious doubts this canard of a book he thinks is the cat's meow has much new to offer that hasn't already been refuted without the author (or Peterson) being aware of it. He ridiculously wants us to thoroughly investigate, learn, read and re-read this book before discussing it, yet has he ever once demonstrated to anyone that he has done so with anything Ernst Mayr has written, just to name one of any hundreds of serious evolutionary scientists and scholars? I have never ever even seen him mention any of these easy to find, very necessary books to read in order to even begin debating evolution on any kind of a serious level:

1.Edward J. Larson, "Evolution's Workshop: God and Science on the Galapagos Islands," (2001)
2. Ernst Mayr, "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology," (1988)
3. Ernst Mayr, "What Evolution Is," (2001)
4. Edward O. Wilson, "The Diversity of Life," (1992)
5. Donald J. Fairbanks, "Relics of Eden, The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA," (2007)
6. Eugene E. Harris, "Ancestors in Our Genome, The New Science of Human Evolution," (2015)
7. Mark Ridley, "The Cooperative Gene, How Mendel's Demon Explains the Evolution of Complex Beings," (2001)
8. A. G. Cairns-Smith, "Genetic Takeover, and the Mineral Origins of Life," (Reprint 1985)
9. Bill Nye, "Undeniable, Evolution and the Science of Creation," (2015)
10. Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True," (2009)

We will die of old age before Peterson quits his hypocrisy on this score. What's his actual evolution knowledge basis, an LDS scholar only? :rolleyes:

_________________
Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. And it is reliability we need, not certainty. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to certainty. Carlo Rovelli


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 29428
Location: Off the Deep End
Philo Sofee wrote:
Quote:
Jersey Girl
:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:

I started watercolor painting last year! I suck at it. :redface:

What if we're not on Instagram? Can you send me examples of your work some other way? Like, you know, some other way? I want to see them.

ETA: I know how to make Aspen trees...the bark part isn't hard.


I doubt very much you suck at it.

I would love to see what you have been painting!


I just mess around with it. I've tried doing wildflowers, lupines, sunflowers, that sort of thing. I truly suck at it. I know how to make Aspen tree bark using a cut up credit card, the leaves aren't too difficult to smoosh on. :lol: I never know what to do with the grass. I've taken to chalk painting furniture. One of my pieces was posted on the board. I could dig it up if you want. No detail work, just painted and waxed, and did the metal pulls. Thinking about buying/selling some pieces while the farmhouse style is still trending.

I don't know how to put photos up here. Quasi posts my photos for me.

:-)

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19435
Location: Koloburbia
What's with the rip in Captain America's tights?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 7943
Location: What does the fox say?
Intelligent Design: a theory that all things complex must have a more complex designer. Until we get to the ultimate designer. He gets a pass. Just because.

That is logical.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:21 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:50 pm
Posts: 1629
Lemmie wrote:
And it turns out the poster who claimed to read it was quoting, without attribution, a review from Amazon. Commenters tiptoed around it, loathe to call it plagiarism I suspect because of Peterson's propensities in that direction. One commenter finally wrote:
Quote:
I understand that sometimes we make mistakes in attribution, but to refuse to acknowledge mistakes like that and then to repeat the mistake in different ways over and over again is poor form in my book.

http://disq.us/p/1tus8p2

O the irony. :rolleyes:

It was unfortunate that the attribution wasn't made from Prop 8, as I noted on the blog I really don't think it ruins the effectiveness of the argument for the source to be someone other than Prop 8. The point remains that people familiar with the science have read the book and they have found it wanting. I didn't touch on the sheer irony of the commenters not liking Prop 8's failure to cite but were more than willing to overlook other grievances... it didn't seem like a battle worth pursuing.

The good news is Prop 8 should be able to do some kind of "Mea Culpa" and be on solid ground again, right? :wink:

_________________
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
grindael wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
I despise you on so many levels.

I'm desspickable....

Image

I thought that was Scott Lloyd. :lol:

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10996
Location: Multiverse
Favorite response to DCP's "recommendation":

gemli • 3 days ago
Here's the rub: A brief scan of his Wikipedia profile shows that Mr. Bethell has "controversial" views on many subjects. He thinks AIDS is not caused by the AIDS virus. He doesn't believe humans contribute to global warming. He denies that evolution is a science. Hired as a researcher for a New Orleans D.A. who was prosecuting a man for involvement in the JFK assassination, he admits to stealing documents from a researcher and intentionally trying to bring harm to the investigation.

So if only people who read his entire book can comment on his views on evolution, they would have to ignore the fact that he openly denies settled science and proudly admits to twisting evidence to accommodate his worldview. Who would spend time reading anti-scientific screeds by a journalist who has no scientific background?

Would anyone require that only people who kept an open mind about the reality of the moon landing read a science-denying journalist's book that claims it didn't happen? Well, yes they would, if a moon landing would challenge their religious beliefs.

............

Another poster went through the book at length. DCP didn't like that. At all. And just read all the fussing around asking for "comments" but not "discussion". :lol: Then DCP's Douche Posse goes after gemli and P8 with ad hom's. :lol:

Dan:

"Precisely the kind of irrelevancy, ad hominem, and well-poisoning that I anticipated from precisely the gemli/P8/BS axis and that I said I did not want to hear. Two of the three have now conformed to expectations."

The Mopes' biggest snowflake ever. :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1744
One review.

Quote:
This is the latest book promoting "Intelligent Design" from the Discovery Institute, and unlike some other recent entries to the field it contains no claim to novel insights -- it is more a survey of the field, and, as the title suggests, is far more about the negation of evolutionary theory than it is about the supposed merit of ID.

One of the most interesting aspects of it is that it shows a somewhat unusual attitude toward the author's potential readers. Some authors, e.g., Meyer, seek to snow their readers by misusing and quote-mining a huge number of references, on the supposition that these will not be consulted. Others, e.g., Axe, explicitly appeal to the reader's non-expertise, imploring him not to give in to the views of experts. Bethell's book is not devoid of those tactics, but in addition, takes a rather daring tack.

Bethell's approach is quite plainly based upon a deep contempt for his reader's level of general learning and intelligence. While ID's detractors are often criticized for lobbing insults at the intelligence of ID's supporters, very few of those detractors display a contempt for that intelligence as profound and general as Bethell's. As much as ID's proponents complain that they are not taken seriously, and that their followers are derided as fools, I have never seen a book which assumes that a person interested in ID is as poorly informed about basic biology or as generally witless as this book does.

A good example of this is his Chapter 9, which deals with homology. He makes some quite bizarre statements here which no literate reader could possibly believe to be true. He tells us, relying on a 1971 quote from de Beer, that the search for homologous genes has been given up as hopeless. He then informs us that we have practically no idea what the relationship between an organism's genotype and its phenotype is, and cites Lewontin's writings from the 1970s to that effect. And -- I kid you not -- he does not update these views at all for his reader. Instead, he goes BACK another century and starts complaining about Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings, leaving the reader with the impression that (1) embryology tells us nothing useful about evolution, (2) homologies seen in embryos and in adults are irrelevant to evolution because they cannot be tied to anything in the genome, and (3) that how organisms are constructed by their genes remains to this day a wholly inscrutable mystery.

Now, when Bethell says these sorts of things, it is plain that he has had a look at his potential audience and judged them to be a pack of ignorant rubes. As most readers of this review will of course already know, the modern study of evolutionary development, or "evo-devo," gives us profound and far-reaching answers to all of these points. Embryology is central to any understanding of evolutionary processes; homologies are demonstrative of evolution and are reflected both in the genome and in the phenotype; and how organisms are constructed by their genes is now understood to a surprising degree and depth. Any statement of the case for ID made to a literate reader would have to deal with evo-devo's contributions to our knowledge; it would have to come to grips with what is now a highly detailed picture of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, illuminated by insights from embryology and genomics, and account for the evidence in terms of ID. Far from giving up as hopeless the search for homologous genes, we have now found them not only in closely-related creatures but in creatures that are profoundly unlike one another -- major suites of genes are shared between mammals and insects, which have their last common ancestor over 500 million years ago. That's not "hopeless" -- that's exceeding the greatest hopes of even the most optimistic inquirer writing in the 1970s. Bethell cannot deal with any of this -- it simply doesn't fit his script -- so he takes the extraordinary dodge of relying only upon sources that are too old to have been informed by the insights of evo-devo. But while one may ignore evo-devo, ignoring it does not make it go away.

Let's be clear on this: citing nothing newer than 1974, while giving your reader the impression that what you are citing reflects the current state of knowledge in evolutionary development, is bizarre. It is like citing a medieval alchemist on atomic theory and asserting that we still really know nothing about atoms other than that if we can find the Philosopher's Stone, we should be able to transmute base metals into gold. This is a fast-moving field; we couldn't even sequence DNA when de Beer wrote in 1971. And this is hardly the only case of this in Bethell's book -- again, and again, and again, he relies upon old sources. He spends a great deal of time on a symposium held at the centennial of Origin of Species, and on a 1966 symposium at the Wistar Institute, and very little on the current state of the science. Anyone who understands a bit about the current state of the science can readily appreciate why this is.

Dishonesty is of course not uncommon in ID writing, and so the mere dishonesty of Bethell's clumsy and transparent attempt to avoid evo-devo, by itself, is no shocker. But Bethell truly must have judged his audience to be profoundly, deeply ignorant of biology, or he could never have thought to get away with this sort of dodge. As a person closely associated with the Discovery Institute, who has addressed such audiences before, he likely knows his audience very well; is he right to suppose that they are this ignorant? I am prepared, in this single instance, to defer to his expertise; but if he is right, it does not speak well for the intellectual health of the ID hypothesis.

There are more examples to be had -- indeed, the book is very wide-ranging and rarely gets more than ankle-deep into any particular subject before moving along, so cataloguing them all would be quite a chore. But it is fair to say that no literate reader could be impressed with anything in this volume; it is a sop for faith, not a science book.

I will touch upon a few more of these strange approaches taken by Bethell, but it is well to remember that it tends to take ten paragraphs to rebut one paragraph of inaccuracies. A thorough rebuttal to Bethell is not going to be found in a book review, but rather in a careful study of what actual scientists, studying actual biology, have actually found. There are many good books available, some of which I will cite further along.

On homology, he further claims that any homologies which ARE observed in nature are fully accountable for under ID theory, and hence cannot be evidence for evolution. Whether he is merely in error or dishonest, in this case, is harder to say, but he is, in any event, obviously wrong. The problem is that if a designer is using common elements from a toolkit to produce things, he will use them as needed, not in accordance with descent. So we should find homologies not in a grand nested hierarchy, as we do find them in nature, but distributed without regard to any apparent nested hierarchy. For example, placental, marsupial, and monotreme anteaters ought, by the ID way of reckoning, to have homologous genes for structures and functions particular to their adaptation to their shared specialized diet. What we find, however, is that while monotremes and marsupials and placentals have many homologous genes and structures and functions, these are the ones common to mammals as a whole, not to the specialized adaptations of a particular lifestyle. Specializations shared by members of these separate groups, while they may be superficially convergent, are not based upon homology.

Bethell does discuss nested hierarchies, but as is typical for ID writings, he relies upon minor disagreements between morphological and genetic inferences about descent (and, within the genetic field, older studies, as these were more problematic and used more limited data sets) to suggest that there are no nested hierarchies. But here, no practicing biologist agrees with Bethell -- not even Michael Behe.

One of his favorite rhetorical devices, throughout the book, is to cite something for a proposition which nobody thinks it demonstrates, point out that it doesn't demonstrate that point, and declare victory. This treatment reaches such things as the peppered moth study not demonstrating the origin of genetic novelty, bacterial antibiotic resistance not demonstrating how abiogenesis occurred, changes in populations due to short-term changes in environment not demonstrating how speciation occurs, and the like. It's clever as a form of rhetoric, but unpersuasive as a mode of reasoning in biology, and it once again demonstrates Bethell's contempt for his readers: he supposes they simply do not know enough about any of these subjects, or what these phenomena are considered to be evidence for, to notice.

In addition to failing to even mention evo-devo work, Bethell manages to object to the idea of evolution creating new species without ever even mentioning the primary explanation of speciation, the allopatric speciation model. It is fair to say that if he had, it would have been unhelpful to his arguments -- so, like all modern evo-devo work, it finds no place in this book.

Like most ID writers, he likewise badly misunderstands Gould's "punctuated equilibria." Since the proper understanding of "punk eek" requires a proper understanding of the unmentioned-by-Bethell allopatric speciation model and its implications for what the fossil record ought to show, it's unlikely that his readers will understand it any better than he does.

At one point he touches upon the therapsids, the group which includes the ancestors of mammals. Here, and elsewhere when he begins to touch upon phylogeny, his treatment is confused and confusing. He doesn't understand cladistics at all, and makes a horrible hash of it when he tries to discuss it. He seems to think that the absence of creatures from the internal nodes (branch-points) of a cladogram means that nobody has any idea what the common ancestors of the creatures on the branches might have looked like. This is quite amusing, since one of the principal values of sorting characters and deriving a cladogram is to allow one to infer, in as objective a way as possible, what the features of those ancestors were: ancestral state reconstruction. He seems, meanwhile, to be deeply confused about the relevance of sister groups to modern lineages, supposing, for example, that particular therapsids which form close sister groups but not direct ancestors of mammals are somehow irrelevant to working out the descent of mammals. He repeatedly expresses the wholly false idea that we really have no idea what any ancestor of anything looked like. All of this makes quite a muddle; it relies on the reader being illiterate on these topics, because if the reader is not, it is so badly botched that it leaves only one question: whether Bethell is simply not able to understand the most basic aspects of phylogeny, or whether he is portraying phylogeny dishonestly in order to make his point. If Bethell is typical of ID writers, it's probably a mix of these two; what it is NOT is a useful lesson on phylogeny, and anyone interested in understanding phylogeny will have to consult a real science book rather than this volume in order to get a grip on these concepts.

His descriptions of fossil evidence are likewise well short of the mark. He briefly mentions Archaeopteryx in the dinosaur/bird transition, but doesn't even mention the many, many dino-bird fossils which have been found since, mostly in very recent times. He also pays a short visit to the Cambrian Explosion, which he likewise bungles badly. What is a real shame is that while he does, for a change, cite a recent work, Erwin and Valentine's excellent volume The Cambrian Explosion, he completely mischaracterizes their conclusions:

"They agree that no one has found the missing fossils or plausibly suggested how the new body plans arose so quickly."

That's a stunningly false description of this excellent book, which in fact offers considerable insight into the meaning of such things as the trace fossils and sclerites we have from pre-Cambrian and early Cambrian creatures and into the evolutionary, developmental, environmental, ecological and genetic processes which Erwin and Valentine identify as the drivers of the Explosion.

The irony of Bethell's horribly incomplete treatments of the fossil evidence is that he ignores the vast numbers of relevant fossils and then tells us, at multiple points in the book, that there's an absence of transitional forms! They are surely absent from his book; from the fossil record, not so much. Again, however, anyone who is curious about them will have to read elsewhere as this book is all shadow and no light.

There is so very, very much more to criticize in this book. It is full of falsehoods, out-of-date information, out-of-context quotes, attempts to whip Bethell's readers up into a culture-war lather, and tactical omissions of the very information which would, if not omitted, cause a reader to say, "well, what about THAT?" Bethell's bad attempts at biology are mixed, from time to time, with Bethell's bad attempts at philosophy. There simply is not space to address them all here. But the remedy to this very poor book is not, ultimately, a critique of the book. A person who would like to actually understand evolutionary theory and the evidence for it can draw upon many, many excellent books on the subject by specialists who have taken the time to render their fields intelligible to the ordinary reader. Even if, for philosophical or religious reasons, you do not feel that you wish to "believe" in evolutionary theory, there can be no possible harm in understanding evolutionary theory on its own terms, rather than through this distorted lens.

To that end, some recommendations: these are personal favorites but there are of course many more.

On evo-devo: Sean Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution;

On systematics, taxonomy, and the breadth and general physiology of living things: Colin Tudge, The Variety of Life: A Survey and a Celebration of All the Creatures that Have Ever Lived;

On general evolutionary theory and the descent, physiology, ecology and diversity of vertebrates: F. Harvey Pough, Christine M. Janis and John B. Heiser, Vertebrate Life (9th Edition);

On the Cambrian Explosion (with a warning that this volume is rather technical, but very worthwhile to the reader who is determined to take it in): Erwin and Valentine, The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity;

On the therapsids and on all of the synapsids, from ancient pelycosaurs to modern mammals: Kemp, The Origin and Evolution of Mammals (likewise technical but deeply interesting and worthwhile).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:07 am 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 784
Lemmie wrote:
And it turns out the poster who claimed to read it was quoting, without attribution, a review from Amazon. Commenters tiptoed around it, loathe to call it plagiarism I suspect because of Peterson's propensities in that direction. One commenter finally wrote:
Quote:
I understand that sometimes we make mistakes in attribution, but to refuse to acknowledge mistakes like that and then to repeat the mistake in different ways over and over again is poor form in my book.

http://disq.us/p/1tus8p2

O the irony. :rolleyes:

I assume that those are paraphrastic notes drawn from an amazon review that Prop 8 had forgotten, part of one of Prop 8's unfinished book manuscripts dealing with evolution, ID, and other topics. This particular manuscript is not ready for publishing, and no one should mistake blog comments as publishing. The constant zealous faultfinding and criticism by others has got to be wearying for Prop 8.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:21 am 
Apostle

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 784
I see that Dr. Peterson points out that Dr. Jonathan Wells has highlighted his post and responded to Prop 8's review. Dr. Peterson directs us to Dr. Wells' background here.

Gemli then responds with a quotation from the Wikipedia entry on Wells: "John Corrigan 'Jonathan' Wells (born 1942) is an American biologist, author and advocate of the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to 'destroying Darwinism.'" Gemli comments: "Now, that's relevance."

Dr. Peterson replies, calling Gemli's comment "a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy of irrelevance" that "also involves the genetic fallacy." He continues:
Quote:
You haven't read Tom Bethell's book. You obviously won't read it. You have nothing to say concerning its actual contents. If you clutter this thread with another such comment, I'll delete it. If you do it twice, I'll ban you entirely from commenting anywhere on my message board for three days. I'm very patient -- but not infinitely so.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3942
Location: La Mancha
Doctor Scratch wrote:
It seems that he's resurrecting all the old gambits. And, in actuality, he *does not* want anyone to read the book. Down in the comments, one poster claimed to have read it, at which point DCP immediately declared that he was too busy to have a discussion about it. Honestly, I sincerely doubt that DCP read the book himself. Maybe he read the first few pages that are shown to you for free on Amazon, but as was demonstrated in--IIRC--one of the plagiarism threads, he often tends to quote from just the first few pages of any given book--like he reads the first dozen pages, skims the rest, and then calls it a day.

A huge irony here is that BYU biologist Steven L. Peck spoke at an Interpreter conference a few years ago and gave the excellent-though-ironically-named talk, “Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible: Overcoming our Suspicions of Science.”

It's been a while since I watched the video, but from memory, Dr. Peck said in a nutshell that Mormons shouldn't be suspicious about the theory of Evolution, because Mormonism embraces all truth and Evolution is in fact true. My favorite line from the talk is when somebody from the audience said that he believed in "micro evolution" but not "macro evolution" and wanted Dr. Peck to comment on that. Peck responded by saying something like, "Saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in inches but not miles."

He reconciles Mormonism and Evolution (to the extent he does) by saying that evolution is a beautiful way for a creator to create life. He then attacks intelligent design by pointing out how inelegant it would be for God to be perpetually and imperfectly meddling with genes in millions of species across hundreds of millions of years.

If Peterson thinks Evolution is a house of cards, why not make the case to the BYU biologists that speak at his own conference?

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:36 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
Analytics wrote:
A huge irony here is that BYU biologist Steven L. Peck spoke at an Interpreter conference a few years ago and gave the excellent-though-ironically-named talk, “Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible: Overcoming our Suspicions of Science.”

It's been a while since I watched the video, but from memory, Dr. Peck said in a nutshell that Mormons shouldn't be suspicious about the theory of Evolution, because Mormonism embraces all truth and Evolution is in fact true. My favorite line from the talk is when somebody from the audience said that he believed in "micro evolution" but not "macro evolution" and wanted Dr. Peck to comment on that. Peck responded by saying something like, "Saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in inches but not miles."

He reconciles Mormonism and Evolution (to the extent he does) by saying that evolution is a beautiful way for a creator to create life. He then attacks intelligent design by pointing out how inelegant it would be for God to be perpetually and imperfectly meddling with genes in millions of species across hundreds of millions of years.

If Peterson thinks Evolution is a house of cards, why not make the case to the BYU biologists that speak at his own conference?


I really don't understand why some members of the church are so upset about evolution. I get that dogmatic young earth creationism folks like Joseph Fielding Smith felt threatened by evolution, but what is the motivation today?

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:44 am 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1222
Runtu wrote:
Analytics wrote:
A huge irony here is that BYU biologist Steven L. Peck spoke at an Interpreter conference a few years ago and gave the excellent-though-ironically-named talk, “Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible: Overcoming our Suspicions of Science.”

It's been a while since I watched the video, but from memory, Dr. Peck said in a nutshell that Mormons shouldn't be suspicious about the theory of Evolution, because Mormonism embraces all truth and Evolution is in fact true. My favorite line from the talk is when somebody from the audience said that he believed in "micro evolution" but not "macro evolution" and wanted Dr. Peck to comment on that. Peck responded by saying something like, "Saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in inches but not miles."

He reconciles Mormonism and Evolution (to the extent he does) by saying that evolution is a beautiful way for a creator to create life. He then attacks intelligent design by pointing out how inelegant it would be for God to be perpetually and imperfectly meddling with genes in millions of species across hundreds of millions of years.

If Peterson thinks Evolution is a house of cards, why not make the case to the BYU biologists that speak at his own conference?


I really don't understand why some members of the church are so upset about evolution. I get that dogmatic young earth creationism folks like Joseph Fielding Smith felt threatened by evolution, but what is the motivation today?


Maybe there has been some intellectual shifts in the culture, where the love of learning and "all truth is gospel" are being overtaken by anti-intellectualism and literalism? Maybe too many who believed in non-literal narratives have left?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10996
Location: Multiverse
Runtu wrote:
Analytics wrote:
A huge irony here is that BYU biologist Steven L. Peck spoke at an Interpreter conference a few years ago and gave the excellent-though-ironically-named talk, “Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible: Overcoming our Suspicions of Science.”

It's been a while since I watched the video, but from memory, Dr. Peck said in a nutshell that Mormons shouldn't be suspicious about the theory of Evolution, because Mormonism embraces all truth and Evolution is in fact true. My favorite line from the talk is when somebody from the audience said that he believed in "micro evolution" but not "macro evolution" and wanted Dr. Peck to comment on that. Peck responded by saying something like, "Saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in inches but not miles."

He reconciles Mormonism and Evolution (to the extent he does) by saying that evolution is a beautiful way for a creator to create life. He then attacks intelligent design by pointing out how inelegant it would be for God to be perpetually and imperfectly meddling with genes in millions of species across hundreds of millions of years.

If Peterson thinks Evolution is a house of cards, why not make the case to the BYU biologists that speak at his own conference?


I really don't understand why some members of the church are so upset about evolution. I get that dogmatic young earth creationism folks like Joseph Fielding Smith felt threatened by evolution, but what is the motivation today?


It's all about authority and sources of knowledge. :wink: Giving science credence undermines Mormonism and priesthood power. Women can be scientists, after all.

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 7943
Location: What does the fox say?
Dr. P knows he does best when he is tilting at men made of straw. Much easier to criticize evolution, when you first misconstrue and incorrectly present it. All the better when you let some one else build the strawman, and then say I won't engage unless you have read the strawman; and even then at my own liesure.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:11 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 13050
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Jersey Girl wrote:
I've taken to chalk painting furniture.

Won't people who sit on the furniture have chalk marks when they stand back up?

_________________
"[Elder] Pearson says he uses a 'black box' for those issues that bother him. . . He forgot to mention that his black box has gotten so big he had to put an addition onto his house."

--kairos, 08-08-2018


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3942
Location: La Mancha
Runtu wrote:
I really don't understand why some members of the church are so upset about evolution. I get that dogmatic young earth creationism folks like Joseph Fielding Smith felt threatened by evolution, but what is the motivation today?

Imagine that you went to the temple at least monthly and sat through a long ceremony with an outsized, repetitive story of God systematically designing life on earth and then systematically implementing the design.

That implies God somehow being more directly involved than evolution allows.

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4874
Location: Firmly on this earth
Dr. Peterson proves again and again he is enamored with the lying ID-iots rather than learning the whole subject of evolution for himself. They secretly say Jesus is the Creator, and Dan appears spooked to ever saying anything that might demonstrate that is mythology. It threatens Jesus' status, that is why Peterson always sides with the morons instead of the scientists. It's a doped way to be for sure. The crazy thing is, here is a perfectly intelligent man taking the low dumb road continually on a science subject that has more powerful evidence than pretty much any other science. Just astounding is all. Apparently he thinks by simply repeating the same old refuted arguments of ID-iots, one day what they say will be true. :lol:

_________________
Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. And it is reliability we need, not certainty. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to certainty. Carlo Rovelli


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4874
Location: Firmly on this earth
Analytics wrote:
Peck responded by saying something like, "Saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in inches but not miles."

That is absolutely one of the coolest responses on that issue I have ever seen.

_________________
Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. And it is reliability we need, not certainty. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to certainty. Carlo Rovelli


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm
Posts: 3377
This is such a great thread. Thanks Philo.

It looks like Prop 8 posted a hilarious mea culpa that is eeriliy similar to one of DCP's prior mea culpa's http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... today.html

And it looks like Prop 8 neglected to mention his source was one of DCP's own prior mea culpas DCP used when he was caught plagarizing. I'm guessing Prop 8 did this as a subtle jab at DCP's hypocrisy, DCP's habit of plagarizing and not citing sources?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is an epic thread and I think DCP is slowly losing control of his blog as Gemli, Bravo Sierra, Prop 8 and others have slowly started to populate the comment sections with sane and reasonable responses. These responses stand in stark contrast to the rude, obnoxious and angry comments from kiwi57, louis midgley and the other Mopologists.

Quote:
I want to acknowledge a problem in a short review of mine that was published recently in Sic et Non:

http://www.patheos.com/blog...

When I went looking for statistics on homologies I was thinking about Puck Mendelssohn's review I found on online:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/c...

I copied some notes from it that were relevant to my point, stuck them among some other thoughts that I had jotted down for the piece. When I came back, I checked the reference and proceeded.

So I want to expressly and gratefully acknowledge my debt to Puck Mendelssohn's article for material (particularly the numerical data on homology) in the second and third paragraphs.

The possibility of this kind of thing has always concerned me. When one writes a lot, drawing on a multitude of sources, there is always the possibility for such a slip-up. And, plainly, I slipped up.

The data that I cited are widely available, and not unique or proprietary to Puck Mendelssohn's article, which was simply a convenient source that came up first in a Google search. Nor is his particular language especially ususual. I could easily have rephrased my presentation of the data, and, honestly, I thought I had. But, as it turns out, I hadn’t. Not enough, anyway.

At this point, I think the most efficient and practical thing to do is probably to acknowledge my use of Puck Mendelssohn's article. I’ll see if it’s possible and practicable to rephrase paragraphs two and three somewhat, but, to be honest, that seems to me a rather artificial exercise once the connection between what I wrote and what he wrote has been granted. It’s not as if I’m trying to cover that connection up, or as if I could do so.

It turns out that I can make stupid mistakes. Who knew?

_________________
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2012


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Peterson Challenges Everyone to Read THIS book!!!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:32 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 19192
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Based on the quoted book review, one is left to wonder what it was DCP saw in this book and why. It looks to be a fraudulent work of pseudo-scholarship detectable by anyone who exercises a modicum of caution and common sense. Why would any scientifically literate person recommend this book to others? Why should it be passed off as worth the effort? DCP has often said that he is a science enthusiast who very nearly chose a career in the sciences. I should imagine he would know, based on his experience as a scholar, that a book addressing a contemporary scientific issue quoting mostly decades-old sources is probably not up to date or even honest. So what gives? Did he not check the citations? Does he not read enough on this topic to know that the author trips over basic concepts in the field? There are so many warning signs here that should dissuade a serious, informed mind from wasting time on this book. Was DCP ineptly joking? Does he, like the author, hold great disdain for his readers’ intelligence? So many questions. DCP is a truly baffling person. Can such a person actually exist? Is he not trolling everyone? Is he the Andy Kaufman of the Mormon world? This is amazing performance art of a truly rare kind.


Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group