Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teleological Science?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 10 of 114 (452865)
01-31-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
01-31-2008 2:40 PM


Re: some examples
1. Saying I am repeating nonsense is rude. Why do that?
Yes it was rude. In fact the entire OP is rude slapping you in the face. The evolutionists are angry persons.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 2:40 PM randman has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 114 (452971)
01-31-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
01-31-2008 6:48 PM


Re: let's talk straight here
Quetzal writes:
You don't bring up any scientific papers in which you seize on a particular word or phrase that you believe supports some kind of anti-evolution or pro-ID position or conclusion that is clearly contradictory to what the authors intended or believe.
Randman in response writes:
Based on this, one cannot use a fact an evo presents and consider it within an ID paradigm. That's unacceptable. I think you need to distinquish between conclusions based on a certain paradigm and facts or data.
There is not two sets of scientific facts. There is only one. Currently, and since 1859, there are two major interpretations of these facts: the pro-evolution and pro-creation/ID interpretation.
It is perfectly legitimate to interpret a fact differently from the person who produced any given fact.
For example, Charles Darwin says the only unique discoveries that he offered were how species become modified (which presupposes evolution) and "to a certain extent how the theory of descent explains certain large classes of facts" (| Darwin Correspondence Project).
But even this is deceiving. We know Darwin received his insight into natural selection while reading Reverend Robert Malthus or the Malthusian geometric population principle (Autobio:120). Many people do not know that both he, and subsequently Reverend William Paley, argued that said principle would prevent evolutionary change (references available upon request). Darwin inverted the explanation. In other words he re-explained the fact claiming the same would cause evolutionary change.
It is also said that Darwin's homology facts were instrumental in convincing the scientific community that evolution had occurred. But we know that these facts were first produced by leading paleontologist Richard Owen - a Creationist - who became Darwin's chief nemesis.
IF Randman is attempting to offer a different explanation or better explanation of a fact then he is certainly entitled to do so, whether a evolutionist produced that fact is irrelevant.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:48 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 02-01-2008 9:45 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 2:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 23 of 114 (453124)
02-01-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
02-01-2008 9:45 AM


Re: let's talk straight here
Ray writes:
Many people do not know that both he [Robert Malthus], and subsequently Reverend William Paley, argued that said principle would prevent evolutionary change (references available upon request).
Percy writes:
Sure, go ahead, provide references.
Be advised I originally also said that Darwin re-explained a fact.
These facts are published here:
Before Darwin
Professor Keith Thomson, Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature (2007:260-61).
In a more general sense, concerning only Paley, selection, and Darwin, the fact is published here:
Structure of evolutionary theory
"Darwin's inversion of Paley...."
Professor Stephen Jay Gould, Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002:120,121,124,127 quote from pages 124,127).
I agree, but what Randman does is different. He reads a paper and offers his own interpretation of it, then argues that that was the interpretation intended by the paper's authors. Within a couple posts of trying to explain that that's not what the authors meant Randman will be accusing you of indoctrination, group think and misrepresentation.
Perhaps he is being misunderstood. In any case all he needs to do is state clearly that he is offering a different or better explanation or interpretation of said fact.
Ray
Edited by Admin, : Shorten links.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 02-01-2008 9:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AdminNosy, posted 02-01-2008 1:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 02-01-2008 3:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 26 of 114 (453144)
02-01-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AdminNosy
02-01-2008 1:42 PM


Re: Supply the actual material
CFO, Please supply relevant quotes (in context) from the references.
Your posts should stand reasonably alone.
Admin: the links provided correspond to the actual page. Simply click and read.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AdminNosy, posted 02-01-2008 1:42 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 114 (453151)
02-01-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Quetzal
02-01-2008 2:07 PM


Re: let's talk straight here
That, in fact, is almost precisely what I was after in this thread. Come up with a way of determining - operationally - teleology as a conceptual tool. The subject could be approached from a "fact" starting point, or do what I tried to do and develop a scenario along the lines of, "If A is true (teleology), we should see B, C, D, E, and F."
Evolutionist thinking does not allow teleological thinking, the same is incomprehensible. Your science cannot fathom or exist within any teleological framework. This was the foremost foundational conclusion of Darwinists after transmutation conquered biology circa 1875.
Unfortunately, based on past history, that is not what rand tends to do. On the contrary, he doesn't reinterprete data published by anyone. He seizes on a single word or phrase (not the data) in the published paper, then argues for 200 posts that what the writer really meant was something completely different than what they wrote. I simply refuse to go down that rabbit hole again.
I have no doubt that Randman disagrees.
I'm really hoping someone - IDist or evo - can brainstorm some other way of demonstrating teleology. I started the ball rolling. I'd like to see someone else's actual ideas.
Have you defined teleology for purposes of this discussion?
In any case, I am glad to have an exchange with you Quetzal, hell aint all that bad is it?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 2:07 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 6:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 32 of 114 (453178)
02-01-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
02-01-2008 3:46 PM


Re: let's talk straight here
Thompson in Before Darwin does say that Darwin inverted Malthus, who believed that overproduction of offspring and the struggle for survival precluded change, but Malthus was writing about society, not biology.
Thomson also said that Paley interpreted Malthus to say the same would preclude change, and we know Darwin obtained his insight from Malthus. Although Malthus was writing about society and population, his argument was offered against English Poor laws, or laws that provided monetary relief to poor persons. Cruel bastard was attempting to persuade the government to discontinue help for the poor.
The Gould page seems to be making this point in greater detail.
Agreed.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 02-01-2008 3:46 PM Percy has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 91 of 114 (459377)
03-06-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
03-05-2008 5:03 PM


Re: Can we know?
The predator-prey relationship drives development of both predator and prey - it is a tool for improvements.
Self-evident nonsense.
I suppose you also think that differential reproduction produced the animal life seen in a rain forrest step by tiny step?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2008 5:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024