To: All Msg #107, Jan3093 05:16PM Subject: football as an argument for atheism In article

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Chris Colby To: All Msg #107, Jan-30-93 05:16PM Subject: football as an argument for atheism Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) Message-ID: <108889@bu.edu> Newsgroups: talk.origins In article charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes: >This "cumulative selection" is not "natural selection" seems to be a read >herring. Could someone tell me who who invented this "cumulative selection" >terminology and when? I don't think anyone ever invented a term "cumulative selection", I have just been sticking the word "cumulative" in front of "selection" to distinguish between numerous rounds of mutation and selection and simply selection. I'm not trying to coin a new term, just tacking a modifier onto an old one when it is appropriate. >I would think that many people would say that natural selection is >the creative force in evolution since it produces adaptation. Mutation >only produces random variability. >Chris apparently agrees, but only if natural selection is renamed "cumulative >selection". If that isn't a semantic quibble, I can't see why. No, I wouldn't rename anything; I'd just be careful to keep clear when someone is referring to a single selective event (and I'd call this "natural selection") and numerous selective events (and I'd call this "cumulative selection" or "cumulative natural selection".) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALOGY TIME Let's say I claim "touchdowns win football games" in the course of a conversation. Then Johnson writes a book called "Colby on Trial" and gives examples of teams who scored a touchdown, and still lost. Would it be worth my while to point out that the phrase "touchdowns win football games" implies more than one touchdown is all it takes to win a football game? -------------------------------------------------------------------- HUMOR TIME an excerpt for "Colby on Trial"... By Jim Bob Johnson (no relation) "So, the footballutionists claim that whoever scores the most points is the winner. But, how is the winner defined? -- it is the team that scores the most points! The whole game, indeed all sporting events, are based on a tautology and therefore useless. In addition, we can clearly view all sporting events as prolonged arguments for atheism. Sporting events assume that God cannot score, only the naturalistic players using natural movements such as punting, passing and kicking. Attempts to introduce games that allow Jesus or God to score are not considered "real sports" and therefore hidden from students taking P.E. credits in public schools. The idea that God cannot "go for the long bomb" (or the "Hail Mary!!!") or that Jesus cannot "put one through the uprights" is based purely on atheistic ideology and indoctrination, not on a sober analysis of the facts." ----------------------------------------------------------------- GET BACK TO THE DAMN POINT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD TIME I don't think it is a semantic argument, but I do think this track has run its course. Hopefully, Johnson will respond to some of the evidence for common descent or modification with descent. >Charles Geyer Chris Colby --- email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu --- "'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined, resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'" --Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank