607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[AlanF]

Scholar JW pretendus wrote:

Quote

Lewontin simply stated that "Organisms...have morphologies, physiologies and behaviours that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvellous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer".

Astonishing! You actually managed to get to get this part right. Except that you missed the fact that Lewontin made the important point in his SA article that the appearance of design was just that -- a mere appearance, not reality. The entire thrust of his SA article was that organisms are NOT designed, but merely seem or appear to be. The very first sentence in the article was this:

<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>

In other words, Lewontin said that evolution by natural selection produces an appearance of design, but that does not mean that any conscious design took place.

But that is NOT what the Creation book claimed that Lewontin said. Rather, it claimed this:

<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. >>

Did Lewontin ever say that HE views the seeming "artful design" of organisms as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer"?

If you say yes, then produce a quotation where he said that.

Quote

Well stated and correctly used in the marvellous and very scientific 'Creation' book.

Actually, quite the opposite.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

stonishing! You actually managed to get to get this part right. Except that you missed the fact that Lewontin made the important point in his SA article that the appearance of design was just that -- a mere appearance, not reality. The entire thrust of his SA article was that organisms are NOT designed, but merely seem or appear to be. The very first sentence in the article was this:

<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>

Yes, indeed the entire thrust of his article was not of Design or the appearance of Design but that organisms only exist because of continuity and quasi-independence as the most fundamental characteristics of the evolutionary process. However. he stated in his introductory paragraphs that organisms appear to have been designed and that their marvellous fit to their environment was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. 

The expression 'appearance of design' can be another way of expressing the reality of Design for if something has an appearance then that can also be an expression of its reality, that 'conscious design took place'. The Creation correctly quoted Lewontin's passage and says that Lewontin views this as such: namely that organisms have the appearance of Design...being evidence of a Supreme Designer. The fact of the matter is that HE, Lewontin made a statement, a observation which does not accord with his personal beliefs as shown by the rest of the SA article.

The Creation book later amended this quotation by omitting 'He views them' to "that some scientists viewed them" but regardless of the change, the original quotation in the Creation book remains correct because that is what Lewontin stated.

scholar JW emeritus 

 

[AlanF]

scholar JW pretendus said:

Quote

 

:: Astonishing! You actually managed to get to get this part right. Except that you missed the fact that Lewontin made the important point in his SA article that the appearance of design was just that -- a mere appearance, not reality. The entire thrust of his SA article was that organisms are NOT designed, but merely seem or appear to be. The very first sentence in the article was this:

:: << The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. >>  

Yes, indeed the entire thrust of his article was not of Design or the appearance of Design but that organisms only exist because of continuity and quasi-independence as the most fundamental characteristics of the evolutionary process.

 

A gobble-de-goop summary, so I won't comment further.

I'll just state for the record that Lewontin is CLEARLY an evolutionist and does not believe in a Supreme Creator. Any contrary claim is a lie.

Quote

However. he stated in his introductory paragraphs that organisms appear to have been designed

His whole thrust was that organisms merely SEEM to be designed but are not -- and seem to be only to those who are naive and know nothing of, or do not accept, evolution by natural selection -- those who do not understand that "the manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."

He further described that this was a mistake made by many 19th century scientists, who viewed that fit as evidence of a Supreme Designer. One of the goals of his article was to correct that mistake.

Lewontin did not say anywhere that HE viewed that fit as evidence for a Supreme designer, and you have failed my challenge for you to provide one. As usual, you lie and dodge and weave, such as repeating the Watch Tower's lie about Lewontin's personal view:

Quote

and that their marvellous fit to their environment was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.

Again, Lewontin clearly explained that THIS WAS THE GENERAL VIEW OF 19TH-CENTURY SCIENTISTS, NOT HIS OWN VIEW.

Quote

The expression 'appearance of design' can be another way of expressing the reality of Design for if something has an appearance then that can also be an expression of its reality, that 'conscious design took place'.

True, but irrelevant, because Lewontin's point was that that mere appearance was a false appearance.

Quote

The Creation correctly quoted Lewontin's passage and says that Lewontin views this as such: namely that organisms have the appearance of Design...being evidence of a Supreme Designer.

False. The book lyingly stated that it was Lewontin's view that such appearance of design was evidence of a Supreme Creator, whereas he clearly explained that this was NOT his view.

Quote

The fact of the matter is that HE, Lewontin made a statement, a observation which does not accord with his personal beliefs as shown by the rest of the SA article.

It's simply amazing how low one can go in trying to rationalize lies.

Quote

The Creation book later amended this quotation by omitting 'He views them' to "that some scientists viewed them"

Yes, which means that the later revision said exactly the opposite of the original book: "He views them" was changed to "some scientists viewed them".

Quote

but regardless of the change, the original quotation in the Creation book remains correct because that is what Lewontin stated.

False. Again, Lewontin never stated what the Creation book claimed, and you have not produced a quotation where he states what the book claimed, namely, that HE -- Richard Lewontin -- views the marvelous fit of animals to their environment as evidence of a Supreme Creator.

The mere fact of printing certain words from a quotation correctly does not mean the quotation is correct. Any misrepresentation of the author's intent is called quote-mining. And that is exactly what the Creation book did, and you are now trying to rationalize.

If I state that the Watch Tower Society has finally bowed to the scientific evidence and admits that evolution is true, I can 'prove' it by noting these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:

"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".

"Evolution is true".

"Evolution is true . . . evolution is true . . . evolution is true".

"Evolution is true" and "The Bible is myth".

"The theory of evolution is true".

You don't accept it? By your standard, the quotations are correct. You can easily prove this to yourself by searching in a WT CDROM.

As I previously pointed out, Lewontin himself complained about the selective quoting done by creationists of his SA article:

<< Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology . . . >>

Lewontin also complained about the practice of misquoting scientists, in the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, on page 35:

<< Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists. >>

It is one thing to cite and describe opposing viewpoints. It is something else again to repeatedly attribute those opposing views to an author or to a publication that merely describes them, especially when it is evident that the description is for the purpose of dismissing it.

So, scholar JW pretendus, not only have you proved nearly incapable of understanding scientific and historical material, but even though your misunderstandings have been clearly pointed out to you, you merely double down on defending the Watch Tower's lies.

Thus, you have no business trying to argue anything about Neo-Babylonian chronology.

AlanF

[scholar JW]

Alan F

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

'll just state for the record that Lewontin is CLEARLY an evolutionist and does not believe in a Supreme Creator. Any contrary claim is a lie.

He is clearly an evolutionist but he uses theistic language in his writings as does many other evolutionists such as Dawkins and Darwin.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

His whole thrust was that organisms merely SEEM to be designed but are not -- and seem to be only to those who are naive and know nothing of, or do not accept, evolution by natural selection -- those who do not understand that "the manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."

He further described that this was a mistake made by many 19th century scientists, who viewed that fit as evidence of a Supreme Designer. One of the goals of his article was to correct that mistake.

True, he writes about the appearance of design in organisms and puts this also in the context of 19th century scientists in the introductory section. His goal was to provide a much more improved view of the adaptation of those organisms as opposed to the earlier view of natural selection.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

Lewontin did not say anywhere that HE viewed that fit as evidence for a Supreme designer, and you have failed my challenge for you to provide one. As usual, you lie and dodge and weave, such as repeating the Watch Tower's lie about Lewontin

Yes he did for one only has to read that quote and its context.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

Again, Lewontin clearly explained that THIS WAS THE GENERAL VIEW OF 19TH-CENTURY SCIENTISTS, NOT HIS OWN VIEW.

Contextually that is correct but the reader could also form the impression that this was his statement of matters but not necessarily his personal viewpoint.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

True, but irrelevant, because Lewontin's point was that that mere appearance was a false appearance.

Nowhere does he refer to a 'false appearance for in the last sentence in that section he refers to a 'divine artificer'.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

False. The book lyingly stated that it was Lewontin's view that such appearance of design was evidence of a Supreme Creator, whereas he clearly explained that this was NOT his view.

False, the book simply makes a direct quote which HE stated.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

t's simply amazing how low one can go in trying to rationalize lies.

You are the master of the 'rationale'.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, which means that the later revision said exactly the opposite of the original book: "He views them" was changed to "some scientists viewed them".

The later revision simply reversed any implication that this was Lewontin's personal view but it was his statement of fact shown by the retention of that source.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

False. Again, Lewontin never stated what the Creation book claimed, and you have not produced a quotation where he states what the book claimed, namely, that HE -- Richard Lewontin -- views the marvelous fit of animals to their environment as evidence of a Supreme Creator.

The mere fact of printing certain words from a quotation correctly does not mean the quotation is correct. Any misrepresentation of the author's intent is called quote-mining. And that is exactly what the Creation book did, and you are now trying to rationalize.

False. The Creation book reproduced Lewontin's comment or statement correctly that is that lewontin stated the fact of the matter. If the quotation correctly reproduces the words and references that quotation then a writer can use that quotation even in a different context. Lewontin made a comment and the Creation book simply used that comment. Quote mining by itself is not wrong as it is part of academic practice but it is usually the case that the reader is given or alerted to the ideological position of the source so for example it would be preferable to say that Lewontin was an evolutionist etc. The context of that paragraph in the Creation book begins with "Stephen Jay Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say...Zoologist Richard lewontin" as an example.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

As I previously pointed out, Lewontin himself complained about the selective quoting done by creationists of his SA article:

<< Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology . . . >>

Lewontin then should not use theistic language so he cannot complain about so-called 'quote mining'. He should write more clearly and avoid terms that could be used in a different context. This is the major problem with modern day evolutionists for they cannot write on this subject without using theistic language or terminology for a good example of this is found in Richard Dawkins. The title 'Blind Watchmaker' is both theistic and ambiguous.

17 hours ago, AlanF said:

So, scholar JW pretendus, not only have you proved nearly incapable of understanding scientific and historical material, but even though your misunderstandings have been clearly pointed out to you, you merely double down on defending the Watch Tower's lies.

Thus, you have no business trying to argue anything about Neo-Babylonian chronology.

You have proved nothing and I will continue to torment you especially with regard to Neo-Babylonian Chronology.

scholar JW emeritus

[scholar JW]

Nana Fofana

Despite Alan F's protestations to the contrary I agree with you that Lewontin, an evolutionary zoologist was correctly quoted in both the earlier and recent editions of the marvellous Creation book. He made a simple admission/statement that has come back to haunt him and then he protests about being misquoted. One thing I have found common in all atheistic/evolutionary writings that such cannot igore either theistic or metaphysical terms or language in trying to explain the subject matter.

scholar JW emeritus

[Jack Ryan]

Just sayin'

interesting isn't it?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

... and even more interesting is the Society will hold to the 607 date in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

THAT's what makes it interesting !!

The rough equivalent of saying the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1930, or Obama saying "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."