Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,399 Year: 3,656/9,624 Month: 527/974 Week: 140/276 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How long does it take to evolve?
Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2389 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


(1)
Message 171 of 221 (770724)
10-13-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Lamden
10-13-2015 12:21 PM


Re: Ok, let's dig a little deeper
This reminds me of a debate about medical ethics in Canada once upon a time, where there was some sort of movement to leave the decision of medical homicide up to (loose quotation ) "the ones that are qualified to make the decision....doctors) (sic).
While a doctor may be the one to diagnose someone as braindead, the decision what to do afterwards has nothing to do with medicine.
False analogy. Braindead isn't evidence, it's a conclusion from the evidence just like evolution in the conclusion from the evidence. You may want to ask a philosopher to tell you what to do now that you know evolution is true but it won't change the fact that it happened and is still happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Lamden, posted 10-13-2015 12:21 PM Lamden has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Lamden, posted 10-13-2015 12:45 PM Bliyaal has replied

  
Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2389 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


Message 174 of 221 (770737)
10-13-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Lamden
10-13-2015 12:45 PM


Re: Ok, let's dig a little deeper
I understand it very well. You want biologists to stop thinking. It's not nitpicking.
Your point is based on a bad analogy.
Philosophers aren't trained to analyse complex data from science, you can't ask them to conclude if evolution is true or not. What they can do for you is think about the consequences of that knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Lamden, posted 10-13-2015 12:45 PM Lamden has not replied

  
Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 2389 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


(1)
Message 195 of 221 (770829)
10-14-2015 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Lamden
10-14-2015 2:47 PM


Re: Eunuchs in the Whorehouse
I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....
Considering that the majority of scientists in the world believe in a deity, I would say that he's wrong.
Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design positionskepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidencedoes not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issuewith special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design. Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrinethat the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical lawcannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.
My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.
He's talking about abiogenesis which is not the same as evolution.
― Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
Well now we know someone who's conception of science is false.
Tell me why should we care about what he has to say?
Edited by Bliyaal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Lamden, posted 10-14-2015 2:47 PM Lamden has 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