Richard Carrier on the ancient creation/evolution debate

Richard Carrier, an independent scholar with a Ph.D. in Ancient History from Columbia University, gave a talk this morning to the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix titled "Christianity and Science ." He argued that there was a creation/evolution debate in ancient Rome that had interesting similarities and differences to the current ...

[MIDutch]

Interesting article:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/11/richard-c...

"Richard Carrier on the ancient creation/evolution debate

Richard Carrier, an independent scholar with a Ph.D. in Ancient History from Columbia University, gave a talk this morning to the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix titled "Christianity and Science (Ancient and Modern)." He argued that there was a creation/evolution debate in ancient Rome that had interesting similarities and differences to the current creation/evolution debate.

He began with Michael Behe and a short description of his irreducibly complexity argument regarding the bacterial flagellum--that since it fails to function if any piece is removed, and it's too complex to have originated by evolution in a single step, it must have been intelligently designed and created. He observed that 2,000 years ago, Galen made the same argument about the human hand and other aspects of human and animal anatomy. Galen wrote that "the mark of intelligent design is clear in those works in which the removal of any small component brings about the ruin of the whole."

So, in other words, "intelligent design" has been around for 2000+ years and still has NO scientific evidence in support.

Good thing that REAL science isn't as lazy as the people "advancing" the "intelligent design theory". We'd still be traveling by horse drawn carts.

[MIDutch]

Also from the article:

"Galen also investigated the question of why eyebrows and eyelashes grow to a fixed length and no longer, and found that they grow from a piece of cartilage, the tarsal plate. He concluded that while his evidence required an intelligent designer, they entailed that God is limited and uses only available materials. Galen, a pagan, contrasted his view with that of Christians. For Christians, a pile of ashes could become a horse, because God could will anything to be the case. But for Galen, the evidence supported a God subject to the laws of physics, who was invisibly present but physically interacting to make things happen, and that God realizes the best possible world within constraints."

[MIDutch]

Finally, something that the "fundamentalist creation christians and muslims" might take into account:

"The difference between Galen's views and those of the Christians was that Galen thought of theology as a scientific theory that had to be adjusted according to facts, that facts about God are inferred from observations, and those facts entail either divine malice or a limited divinity. What we know about evolution today places even more limits on viable theories of divinity than in Galen's time.

Galen's views allowed him to investigate, conduct experiments to test the theories of his opponents as well as his own, and make contributions to human knowledge. He supported the scientific values of curiosity as a moral good, empiricism as the primary mode of discovery, and progress as both possible and valuable, while Christianity denigrated or opposes these. The views of early church fathers were such that once Christianity gained power, it not only put a halt to scientific progress, it caused significant losses of knowledge that had already been accumulated."

Logic, reason and science (NOT the denial thereof) used philosophically and theologically to LEARN about "god" ...

as opposed to ...

using "god" to deny, ignore and lie about science, reason and logic.

What a concept.

[MIDutch]

Okay, just one more:

Tertullian, a contemporary of Galen, asked, "What concern have I with the conceits of natural science?" and "Better not to know what God has not revealed than to know it from man."

Two quotes out of antiquity that pretty much sums up the "creationisists' " mindset; I don't care about science; if "god" didn't reveal it, than it isn't worth knowing.

To Tertullian and modern day "creationists" it is better to be ignorant than to trust the knowledge and wisdom learned by man.

Two thousand years later, and people like this STILL exist. Amazing.

[MIDutch]

So, no "cdesign proponentsists" want to tackle this article about ID history?

2400+ years.

No significant scientific discoveries.

Hello.

"cdesign proponentsists"?

Hello.

Anyone.

Anyone.

[FossilBob]

MIDutch wrote:

So, no "cdesign proponentsists" want to tackle this article about ID history?
2400+ years.
No significant scientific discoveries.
Hello.
"cdesign proponentsists"?
Hello.
Anyone.
Anyone.

It appears that ID "philosophy" has gone downhill over the last 2000 years!

[MIDutch]

FossilBob wrote:

<quoted text>
It appears that ID "philosophy" has gone downhill over the last 2000 years!

Well, if you start out with Plato, Aristotle and Gallen and end up with Infinite Farce, marksman11, Divine Alien, etc. one could reasonably conclude that, yes.

[MikeF]

MIDutch wrote:

Well, if you start out with Plato, Aristotle and Gallen and end up with Infinite Farce, marksman11, Divine Alien, etc. one could reasonably conclude that, yes.

Don't forget Shubee!

[Darwins Stepchild]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't forget Shubee!

Shubee...or not Shubee...that is the question.