Secular fundies, take a sedative before reading this:

[Joe Chi Minh]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

Summing up, Stanley Salthe states:
"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."

and Stuart Kauffman:

"Developmental biologist Stuart Kauffman is clearly one who thinks we must expand evolutionary theory. Kauffman, now head of the Biocomplexity and Informatics Institute at the University of Calgary, is known for his decades-long investigations into self-organization. He's been described by one evolutionary biologist as a "very creative man, try reading one of his books" who said in the next breath that "if he really put an effort into understanding evolutionary biology -- the basic theoretical framework that we have -- I think he could have come a lot further".

Meanwhile, Kauffman's had a breathtaking career, beginning as a medical doctor, honored as a MacArthur fellow (genius) and has worked with Nobel prize winner Murray Gell-Mann at the Santa Fe Institute where he first studied self-organization. Looking at simple forms like the snowflake, he noted that its "delicate sixfold symmetry tells us that order can arise without the benefit of natural selection". Kauffman says natural selection is about competition for resources and snowflakes are not alive -- they don't need it."

It strikes me, though, that despite their compelling insights, by alluding to 'self-organisation', they are still not addressing the issue of a creative intelligence implicit in any design, or the dynamism also implicit in any creation and evolution. Life.

The 'primordial soup', from which Life, it was once posited, emerged, and which the secular fundies uncritically swallowed, has been proved to be utter tosh. Why is it they so ingenuously swallow conjecture as Science?

[enki23]

1. that's pretty funny.

:rofl:

pushing this small conference as something inimical to "secular fundies" is pretty freaking lame. as is the term "secular fundie," which is about as perfect an oxymoron as one can get.

[PseudoIntellect]

3. Not really.

Fundamentalism isn't strictly religious, just a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles."

But anyway, abiogenesis will never be declared a null hypothesis, because scientists will ALWAYS search for the natural explanation for life forming. I read an article in DISCOVER where it said chances were higher that the primordial soup was in ice than in the ocean.

I agree, though. The problems with the hypothesis are major right now.

[Random_Australian]

4. You do realise that life from chemicals is a natural process, right?

And given that life is formed of chemicals, "life from non-life" also known as "chemicals from other chemicals" is the current null hypothesis, right?

Because maybe I was misreading what you were saying.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Why? There's nothing there. nt

[Random_Australian]

5. You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. :)

No offense, but take a look at what you have posted.

1) They are talking about spontaneous self-organisation; this is something without a creator.
2) They argue against Darwinian evolution, not modern synthesis.
3) "demonstrate that the cell and the organism are a very complicated set of processes activating and inhibiting one another" (from referenced text).

This was alraedy known. They have not presented an argument against evolution.

Of course, there is lots of other stuff, but more importantly your quote:

"It strikes me, though, that despite their compelling insights, by alluding to 'self-organisation', they are still not addressing the issue of a creative intelligence implicit in any design, or the dynamism also implicit in any creation and evolution. Life."

It strikes me, though, that you are pretty much wrong. You call order "design" and say there must be a designer.

And they aren't alluding to self-organisation. They state it plainly. Self-organisation happens all the time. A large part of my chemistry this semester will be self-assembly.

"The 'primordial soup', from which Life, it was once posited, emerged, and which the secular fundies uncritically swallowed, has been proved to be utter tosh"

Whoopsadasie! It looks like you've made this claim, while referencing absolutely nothing that says the primordial soup idea was wrong. Better luck next time!

"Why is it they so ingenuously swallow conjecture as Science? "

Aye, conjecture is exactly what you haven't referenced in the OP, and you never said "a creative intelligence implicit in any design," either.

:)

Oh well.

[hunter]

6. Blech. I wanted clam chowder and you brought me primordial soup.

What is a "secular fundie?" Why is he swallowing primordial soup?

Oh well, I'm just a lefty Christian who believes "intelligent design" or "Creation Science" depreciates the True Miracle of Creation, so I don't suppose I have to worry about it.

:shrug:

[Duppers]

7. pleeeeeeeeeeeeasssseeee!

nt