sign up! webstats forums guestbooks calendars

Was Darwin Wrong?

Write message
Name *: E-mail *:
Homepage: Location:
Message *:
  All fields with a "*" must be filled out!
Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 >
Entries: 156
30.09.2008 14:56, Gert Korthof :
Beste Michael,
Hartelijk dank voor je reactie. Wat is je voorstel? Je wilt de scheidslijn geloof en wetenschap opheffen of relativeren? of semi-permeabel maken? Ik begrijp dat je ingenieur bent. Stel je moet een oplossing bedenken hoe mensen naar de overkant van een rivier komen. Je gaat de Bijbel bestuderen hoe Jezus over het water liep en als je daar achter bent, implementeer je dat ter plekke. Probleem opgelost? Of gebruik je de kennis die je in je opleiding in Delft hebt geleerd? Je bouwt een brug of je zet in veerpont in. Hoe stel je dat voor de scheiding tussen geloof en wetenschap relativeren, etc.?
PS ik neem aan dat je f/korthof64.htm
gelezen hebt?
NB: probeer Nederlandse commentaren in het vervolg bij voorkeur in in te voeren.
Dit guestbook is vnl Engelstalig.
m vr gr
Gert Korthof

29.09.2008 16:22, Michael Steenbergen from Delft E-mail :
Gert Korthof,
Ik vind uw benadering van Cees Dekker en zijn geschriften op z'n minst onfair. U hamert op een strikte scheiding van, bijvoorbeeld, filosofie en wetenschap, maar ook geloof en wetenschap. Het is een oud debat, maar kan het niet zo zijn dat het concept van een absolute scheiding tussen beide, oorzaak is van veel fouten, of is het zelfs al verboden deze vraag te stellen? Is juist dit concept niet essentiëel om evolutie als wetenschappelijke hypothese te blijven kunnen handhaven?
Fouten rijzen vaak juist daar waar onze ratio strikte scheidslijnen aanbrengt in een werkelijkheid waarin deze scheidslijnen helemaal niet bestaan. Zowel in wetenschap als geloof is de 'actor' de menselijke rede. In een wetenschap die zichzelf wenst af te grenzen van geloof wordt de deur gesloten voor de vraag naar de kenbaarheid van de werkelijkheid in al haar aspecten, en of empirie daarvoor het unieke en uitsluitend te aanvaarden middel is. Nu goed, alleen dat al kan niet 'wetenschappelijk' bewezen worden, en ik wil het graag betwisten. En hier ligt zonder meer een verdienste van Cees Dekker. Hoeveel wijsheid zit er eigenlijk in Genesis, dat verhaalt dat de hoogmoed, het 'quis ut Deus' de eerste val van de mens was, die hem verblindde.
Waarbij ik mij wellicht in uw wetenschappelijke optiek moet verexcuseren om de gedefinieerde scheidslijnen doodleuk te overschrijden en Genesis te noemen.

21.09.2008 07:29, Gert Korthof :
You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:43-44).

20.09.2008 12:15, John :
Gert Korthof,


The problem with you and your "review", trial as you stated (like you are in a place of knowledge to judge), is clear to anyone paying attention to your wordy logomachy and undertones. You reak of biased self exaltations as well as for those who support your personnal views and agenda. You are quick to try to dismiss anyone who is opposed to your "sciences". You have a "who do they think they are" attitude while at the same time exercising a double standard by putting yourself and your supporters on a pedestal ordained with fancy titles to try to impress the masses. You use many words to try to dazzel people and baffel ones mind with your bologna. I could easly pull your statements to shreds without taking your words out of context, like you do to others. Why do you think it is called the theory of evaluation and not the fact of evaluation?
here is the simple answer for you without all your logogriph games: there are no true facts to back it up...
well, other than your opinion built off your self fulfilling prejudgice biased agenda. Or, deliberate ignorance out of failure to look at the facts resulting in a plain old "brain washing" from some foolish baffler spewing out in logorrhea as you.

why don't you just be truthful for once and save yourself all the trouble, just come out and say it:
I choose to live in sin.
most people live in sin anyway, you will fit right in.
(this way you will not have to go so "far out" to try to prove there is "no God" to convince yourself that you are not accountable for anything.)

The truth is 2008 years later it all still comes down to Jesus, you believe Him or you don't (accept or refuse Him).

20.09.2008 07:51, gert korthof :
Thanks Karen. I guess that molecular biology is similar to biochemistry? Anyway, he is not a biologist trained in whole-organism biology. He does not know very much about ecology, behaviour, genetics, palaeontology. That is clear from his writings. If he is a molecular biologist, he does not use his knowledge when discussing the origin of life. His discussion of the origin of life is almost free of any biochemistry.

19.09.2008 16:46, Karen Dean :
One correction on Periannan Senapathy--he is not a self-taught biologist. In fact, his Ph.D is in Molecular Biology.

15.09.2008 11:09, gert korthof :
Dear Yutaka Kobayashi,
could you please more information about the error?
I cannot reproduce your error.
Are you reading f/korthof61.htm
or the pdf version? Which browser (version)? etc
Thank you.
Gert Korthof

15.09.2008 07:06, Yutaka Kobayashi E-mail :
Dear Gert Korthof,
Thank you for your informative reviews. In "Historian's demythologizing acid," the pages that contains "Darwin: a lifelong Lamarckist" and the ending notes produced illegible pages. I would appreciate for your attention.
Yutaka Kobayashi

14.09.2008 21:35, Baykal Gulbay :
When Science Light falled to dark ways of mind,We saw many things what we want to know but can't find.When we walk our mind's dark ways but enlightened now,sometimes we lost the right direction of our purpose which is finding right answer for right question.We asked the right direction to what we see around us who we believed and they said we are scientists.We found ourselves in wrong destination.Now I am fearing cause of this light going to be dim .If the man is interested in one scientific area,the man who interested in this area is feeling itself just like a scientist and writing a book about his subject with half baked theories and showing to us wrong direction.I want to thank to you Mr.Korthof for criticizing these books with scientific light in dark world...

Baykal Gulbay
Metu NCC
Computer Engineering

08.09.2008 13:08, gert korthof E-mail :
please send the corrections to the email address which is named in the section
Thank you very much!
Regarding uninvited sites while being at my site: please activate block popups in your browser and see if it helps. If not, add comment here.
Gert Korthof

04.08.2008 18:15, koen from Belg E-mail :

Ik heb daar zelf ook meer in detail over geschreven in: Van Darwin tot Dawkins, een korte geschiedenis van een onvoltooide revolutie:

Koen Tanghe, jurist, antropoloog
Ik heb Uw boek toegevoegd aan de lijst op:
Gert Korthof

12.07.2008 21:31, Robert M. Hamilton, Ph.D. from Newark, NJ USA E-mail Homepage :
I would like to suggest my website for your review. It it actually a linked group of about 8 sites that are each a chapter of a book to be published this year.

The book is called "Furies in the Genome." Briefly, it attemps to examine the consequences of the supposition that genetic variation and natural selection have the same cause, which is the struggle for existence.

A pdf version is also available upon request.

30.06.2008 07:29, korthof :
Dear friend,
Adam & Eve are not historical persons. They did not exist. They were not created. That would mean independent origin. Independent origin is a biological impossibility. It would violate thousand known facts. See pages:

30.06.2008 06:44, Handoko from Indonesia E-mail Homepage :
Dear friend.
Would you mind giving an explanation, how have Adam & Eve been created?
Thank you,

<a href=""></a>

The Inspired Family Site

23.06.2008 08:17, korthof :
John, Which book about the theory of evolution did you read?

04.06.2008 06:45, Gert Korthof :
Andre van Peppen,
bijv: Chris Buskes (2006) Evolutionair denken. De invloed van Darwin op ons wereldbeeld,
lijkt misschien wel iets in die richting. Kijk daar eens op zijn website. (Nijmegen)

02.06.2008 18:19, Andre van Peppen E-mail :
Geachte heer Gert Korthof,

Via een zoekopdracht "evolutionaire epistemologie" kwam ik op uw spoor. Ik zoek een univesiteit liefst in NL waar men zich richt op snijvlakken tussen biologie en filosofie. Ik tracht een 'algemene subjectiviteitstheorie' (mijn werk is filosofisch en het mag daarom eigenlijk geen theorie heten) te ontwikkelen maar heb tot dusver geen ingang gevonden in de academische wereld. Wellicht weet u een onderzoeksgroep waar ik aansluiting zou kunnen vinden.

Bij voorbaat dank,
Andre van Peppen

02.06.2008 18:14, Andre van Peppen E-mail :
Geachte heer Gert Korthof,

Via een zoekopdracht "evolutionaire epistemologie" kwam ik op uw spoor. Ik zoek een univesiteit liefst in NL waar men zich richt op snijvlakken tussen biologie en filosofie. Ik tracht een 'algemene subjectiviteitstheorie' (mijn werk is filosofisch en het mag daarom eigenlijk geen theorie heten) te ontwikkelen maar heb tot dusver geen ingang gevonden in de academische wereld. Wellicht weet u een onderzoeksgroep waar ik aansluiting zou kunnen vinden.

Bij voorbaat dank,
Andre van Peppen

17.05.2008 02:46, Glenn Shrom E-mail :
2. Korthof sets up a scenario in which Behe argues against pseudogenes. This completely ignores Behe's words in DBB p. 228: "During this process ... pseudogenes might occasionally arise and a complex organ might become nonfunctional. These chance events do not mean that the initial biochemical systems were not designed. The cellular warts and wrinkles that Miller takes as evidence of evolution may simply be evidence of age."

Korthof agrees with Behe's main argument: that unknown function does not mean no function at all. What he fails to do is to understand that Behe is not trying to arguing that pseudogenes are actually genes with an as-of-yet unknown function. Behe is contemplating functions which the pseudogenes once served, and which they can no longer carry out because of "age", the way they have been "left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat and be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer all the vagaries of life on earth" (still Behe in DBB p. 228) to the point of no longer functioning.

On pp. 227-228 Behe gives two types of explanations: functions which were programmed in at the beginning, but did not become operational until later on, ... and functions which at one time were operational but which later on ceased to function properly.

If you want to understand what Behe's three arguments were with Miller and what idea of Miller's was being argued against, re-read DBB on those pages. But I can tell you right now, that Behe was not arguing against pseudogenes or obsolete genes, and that being the case, Behe did not make an about face to later on admit to the existence of pseudogenes.

Just from that little spell with Korthof, I am not too impressed. In the first section of the review, he tries to criticize Behe for not writing about intelligent design. It's long been known to people in the ID movement that arguments about the limitations of evolutionary explanations are NOT arguments for design. It seems to me that in DBB Behe set forth arguments FOR design, and in The Edge of Evolution Behe is talking about the limitations of evolution explanations. it is a good thing that they are two separate works, with two different objectives, and really on two different subjects or topics. Judge Jones missed the distinction that the ID movement already makes between those two distinct topics, and he acted like he was the one who could see it while the ID movement could not. Comparing these two works by Behe, one can see that the ID movement recognizes them as separate issues, even though Korthof wants them to both be lumped in together --- perhaps because he wants ID people to seem blind and ignorant like Judge Jones would have us believe.

17.05.2008 02:43, Glenn Shrom E-mail :
I checked out the section of Darwin's Black Box which is referred to in the Edge of Evolution review. It's pp. 225-228 of the First Touchstone edition 1998.

Gert Korthof makes two charges relevant to this section:

1. Behe claims that "the design of life is perhaps packed into its initial set-up", yet he also talks about non-random mutations occurring late in the history of life. Korthof claims that these two ideas are incompatible, and that Behe can't have it both ways.

In DBB p. 227-228, however, Behe explains this. "Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems ... One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, ... were present but not 'turned on'. In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time."

Behe is speculating about a non-random mutation which is planned at the beginning and the cell is made to one day go through a designed mutation, but then it has to actually what for some day thousands or millions of years later for that mutation to actually take place.

Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 >
Entries: 156
Get free forums, guestbooks, calendars, shorturls and web statistics at motigo.
Site Information