|
Author
|
Topic: Darwinism as Delusion (response to Richard Dawkins by John Davison)
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. November 2006 18:07
I am having no fit of pique. Quite the contrary I am delighted with Springer's actions. Judging from his last message here, I think we can safely assume that David Springer acted without consulting either O'Leary or Dembski. This answers the question which I originally asked. Who is actually in charge of Uncommon Descent? The answer is transparent. David Springer is. That is all I really wanted to know in the first place.
Thank you David Springer for the clarification. I also note that Denyse O'Leary has allowed some comments from me to stand at her new blog. Perhaps Dave should inform her of the change of my status. We surely can't be giving out mixed messages with respect to "the final solution to the Davison problem," don't you know. You have now joined Wesley Elsberry, the folks at ARN and EvC and P.Z. Meyers' Pharygula and Richard Dawkin's blog and God only knows how many other forums and blogs where I can no longer present and defend my evolutionary theses.
Why don't you arrange to have me banned here as well? Don't leave any stones unturned. Surely that too must be within the province of the great David Springer. Give it a whirl. I'll bet you can pull it off. frankly I hope you can.
Keep up the good work Dave. As you continue as the biggest bully in cyberspace you are credit to the wonderful world wide web!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"Ooooh, how sweet it is!
Jackie Gleason
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 15. November 2006 20:37
John,
The decision to display your papers was all mine and the decision to remove them was all mine too. I have no desire to interfere with the moderator's decisions on Brainstorms. You're his problem not mine. I'm not ultimately in charge of Uncommon Descent. Dembski is. If you have a problem with anything I've done go ahead and write to him. I'm almost certain you'll be ignored but give it a whirl anyway. Got it? Write that down.
[ 15. November 2006, 20:48: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. November 2006 23:10
That is NOT the way it looks from here I am afraid. I recall the last time you purged my papers. You explained it by quoting from the Bible -
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."
I didn't know you were the Messiah, but that is obviously your self-image. Good luck with it and I pity Uncommon Descent. You are doing it no good. Now go brutalize someone else. It is what you do best. It is all you know how to do. You need it.
I still hold Dembski responsible for his forum just as I hold Elsberry responsible for his, P.Z Meyers for his, etc. etc. The buck stops with the sponsor of the forum. Correct me if I am wrong. Of course maybe Dembski is afraid of you. God knows enough people really are. I am not one of them. Sorry about that.
And so to bed.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 15. November 2006 23:12
Stop whining, John. It's unbecoming.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. November 2006 00:25
I do not whine. I publish my works in refereed journals. I also do not plagiarize as you do all the time. You should either resign or be summarily dismissed from Uncommon Descent as you are a blight on rational intercourse. Everybody knows that. It is probably the only place left that will tolerate you. You are an arrogant tyrant. Dembski should be ashamed of himself. The only thing I can figure is that he is afraid of you. I'm sure not. Got that? Write that down.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. November 2006 00:28
Now go abuse someone else. You need that!
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. November 2006 01:08
In the interest of civil discourse, I will not respond to any further remarks from David Springer. This thread is for the discussion of my response to "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, an opportunity I have been denied at Uncommon Descent.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 16. November 2006 11:53
Poor abused John Davison. I'm sorry honey. I didn't realize what a delicate little flower you were.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. November 2006 15:38
As I said over at richarddawkins.org/ and for exactly the same reasons -
"It doesn't get any better than this."
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 16. November 2006 16:02
I cannot find english translation of last Friedrich Nietzsches book Gotzen Dammerung, but anyway he ridicules Darwin very - that he forget spiririt completely. According Nietzsche "Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!)". Nietzsche was atheist, but nevethenless this citation is very interesting (he addressed also mimicry in his own way):
Anti-Darwin. - Was den berühmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die Üppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekämpft wird, kämpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so läuft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wünscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wünschen dürfte: nämlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glücklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder über die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klüger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nöthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nöthig hat. Wer die Stärke hat, entschlägt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehört ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).
http://manybooks.net/support/n/nietzsche/nietzscheetext058gtzn10.exp.html
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. November 2006 19:13
Martin
Thank you.
I am not at all certain Nietzsche should be described as an atheist. His claim "God is dead" certainly indicates that God once lived which is basically my position as well. I am a convinced Creationist yet I see no evidence for God at present nor do I see a need for one. That one or more Creators once must have once existed is undeniable since chance has played no role whatsoever in either ontogeny or phylogeny. To that extent I agree with Leo Berg.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
Those atheists that choose to deny that God or Gods once existed are living in a fantasy world which will never be reconciled with the origin or origins and the susequent evolution of life.
The scientist should not postulate any more than is absolutely necessary to account for the phenomena he observes. There is absolutely no evidence for God now nor is there any need for one. Pierre Grasse put it this way -
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
I am not at all certain there was a single act of creation and there are plenty of reasons to postulate several, just as there remain reasons to postulate several independent front-loadings during the evolutionary sequence. Creative evolution is no longer in progress any way. If it were it could be demonstrated and it hasn't been. There is absolutely NOTHING of value in the Darwinian model beyond the experimentally verified production of intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species anyway. The whole paradigm is a fantasy generated by mentalities that are incapable of recognizing design and purpose in both the living and non-living world. They were "prescribed" to be that way and there is nothing that can be done for them.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 16. November 2006, 19:18: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 16. November 2006 19:22
John,
your Evolutionary manifesto is my favorite reading. You know, I have favourite authors like Dostoevsky, Carl Gustav Jung, Heinrich Boll, Francois Mauriac, Graham Green, all of them Christians but in their peculiar way. I added your work to them. Thank you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 16. November 2006 19:44
John,
Czech prominent scientist Zdenek Neubauer is strong antidarwinist. His articles against neodarwinism is very well indeed. I suppose you
cannot read czech but anyway:
http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~neubauer/
His articles - as far as I know he avoid media and stopped write in english, but preferred only italian - he is fluent in english, german, greek.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. November 2006 05:10
Thank you very much Martin. I don't handle compliments very well as they are rare enough. I am much more accustomed to insult, denigration, isolation, ridicule, bannishment and wholesale personal defamation. I thrive on them all because they all mean the same thing. I, and especially my sources, some of the greatest biologists of all time, most certainly must be on the right track to evoke such rabid and universal vitriol. Only the semi-meiotic hypothesis was original with me. Everything else is but the logical extension of the common and largely independent conclusions of scientists far greater than myself, notably, and in alphebetical order, William Bateson, Leo Berg, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse and the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier, Otto Schindewolf. Without them I would be nothing. These are the same figures that have been ignored or defamed by the Darwinians and Protestant Fundamentalists alike. There is no place for religion in science and never has been. Darwinism is much more of a religion than Christianity as Christ taught tolerance and forgiveness, words that do not even exist in the ultra-liberal atheist lexicon.
Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic who attended mass daily when he was able but it never influenced his science. You will find virtually no mention of God in the works of my sources and that is the way it should be. I happen to be a confirmed and baptized Roman Catholic myself but I certainly am not so deranged as to let that influence my science. I attend mass only occasionally but always find it a rewarding experience.
Being denigrated by others can be a rewarding experience also. I do not jest when I say -
"I love it so!
and
SOCKITTOME!
Thank you again for the encouraging words Martin. They also are rewarding.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. November 2006 07:00
John,
Wait just one minute. You are a confirmed baptized Roman Catholic who attends church and is rewarded by it, yet you claim that God is dead? Do you have the slightest idea exactly who it is that the Roman Catholic Church worships? They worship the one true LIVING God our Father in heaven, His Holy Spirit present and active within the heart of every believer, and Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who died and was raised from the dead to pay the sin debt of mankind for all of our sinful acts and concur death so that we may be personally reconciled with God through faith in the Son and live with Him forever. Yet you say; "God is dead".
John, the next time you go to mass, and I hope that it is soon, listen to the readings from God’s Word. I mean listen to them. If you leave God out of your science then leave your science out of that experience. Listen to the Word with an open heart and see if the LIVING God does not speak to you personally on that day and in the days that follow it. Sir, I challenge you to listen to the Word as it is read to you at the mass; hear if you will humble yourself before God what love He has for you today and forever.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic