Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 67 (35446)
03-27-2003 11:03 AM


For Joralex.....
quote:
What 'evolution' are you talking about?
There really is only one ToE...
quote:
Yes, there is "gobs of evidence" for variation (changes) in organisms.
... and that is it!
quote:
But evidence for the earth's entire biota having a common, goo-like ancestor?
One step at a time. Start with a population of animals and note that with each generation the genes of the individuals vary slightly. Then note that more distantly related individuals have more variation between their genes. This gives you a mechanism by which you can determine the relationships between organisms even if you haven't observed them actually banging their various gongs. Couple this with timelines established via observations of mutation rates and you have a timeline of life on earth. Now, take the indisputable ( I hope ) observation that genes effect the way the body-- most notably for our purposes, the skeleton-- looks and you have a means of corroborating and expanding the above timeline and relationship chart.
quote:
Seems to me like this "new character" has been around for a long time.
All but the last bit is not evolution. Only creationists insist on calling this whole sequence the "evolutionary paradigm." When you accept the idea of gravity, as I assume you do, do you also accept the "gravitational paradigm" which includes relativity which in turn implies the Big Bang? This tactic does nothing but muddy the water. It is diversionary.
quote:
Not a materialist?
Yes, and neither is any modern physicist unless you redefine "materialism" to account for the weird happening of quantum physics and matter/energy equivalencies. But this redefinition would be preposterous to the folks who traditionally went by the title of materialist.
quote:
So, are you a theistic evolutionist, a progressive evolutionist, or some other?
I just happen to think evolution fits the data best.
quote:
Typical - ridicule that which is not understood.
Typical-- cry foul and avoid the issue. Does one need an intellectually defensible position against an absurd idea?
quote:
There are many intelligent, well educated individuals
Appeal to authority.
quote:
that not only defend creationism intellectually
... attempt to defend creationism intellectually.
quote:
They say creationism is defensible. You say it isn't. Now what?
Where is that defense? I've been looking for it for quite some time.
quote:
BTW, the answer to "why does God allow suffering?" is available to anyone that wants to listen.
So you avoid the issue by stating that there is a answer but you aren't going to share it?
The point, btw, is that there does not have to be an answer to every question. That is, we don't have everything figured out. This doesn't invalidate what we do have, tentatively, figured out.
quote:
Dear John, it is thee that has missed the point.We can only go by what we do have - I totally agree. But then it becomes necessary to fill in whatever gaps we have in our knowledge.quote]
This is where we part. You appear content to just make up something to shove into those gaps. I am not so content. I'd like to have some REASON to place one item rather than another into the various gaps.
quote:
Now, just how is it that these gaps are filled?
With inferences from evidence, not with whatever-you-want-to-make-up.
quote:
Aside from fanciful/wishful theories and unrealistic experiments (e.g., Stanley Miller), there is nothing that tells us how evolution could have gotten its start.
Discounting experiment does not help your case.
Abiogenesis is an unsolved puzzled. We don't know in detail how a lot of things work. That is why there are scientists. Does, in other arenas, an unanswered question throw doubt on the whole field?
quote:
And so people like yourself are forced to say, "Well, we don't know how it got started but it did."
This isn't science, it's metaphysics.

Metaphysics????? It is common sense. It obviously did get started or we wouldn't be here. Or do you deny that animals reproduce and pass along altered DNA each time?
The difference is that you want to say that God started it, and this without evidence-- so far at least. I would rather wait for some REASON to believe one story over another. And in the meantime, restrict myself to reasoning from the evidence we have.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-27-2003 12:09 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 67 (35714)
03-29-2003 3:16 PM


I'm bumping my Post #2
Joralex? Are you still out there?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 03-29-2003 11:42 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 67 (35808)
03-30-2003 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Joralex
03-29-2003 9:08 PM


Re: Metaphysics for beginners : - )
Lets look at your encyclopedia citation.
World Book 2001 Encyclopedia writes:
"Metaphysics is concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists."
Sentence 1: The ToE is in no way shape or form concerned with the basic nature of reality. You will not find evolutionary biologists, in an official capacity, discussing whether nature is fundamentally mind or matter, for example.
Sentence 3: This is exactly what evolution is-- the study of a specific feature of the natural world. And thus, by your own reference, evolution is a natural science, not a metaphysic.
Science, all of science, deals with observable phenomena -- allowing for the extension of our senses via technology. The METAPHYSIC invloved is very nearly universally refered to as empiricism. What I can't figure out is why you want to ditch this term in favor of your own very diversionary "metaphysic of evolution."
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Joralex, posted 03-29-2003 9:08 PM Joralex has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 67 (35920)
03-31-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Joralex
03-31-2003 10:49 AM


Re: The Metaphysic of Evolution
quote:
I continue to be puzzled over so many people being seemingly unaware of the fact that there is a metaphysic of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE).
That puzzlement, frankly, is due to the fact that the ME is something you have made up, though many creationists play a similar game.
quote:
I can't shake the feeling that I'm being played here.
It is you who are playing-- with definitions mostly.
BTW, I can't shake the feeling that you are avoiding my posts. As evidence, I point out that you repeat your World Book 2001 Encyclopedia argument without responding to my comments concerning it.
quote:
The essence of any metaphysic (the bolded part above) is to provide fundamental, underlying principles that govern reality.
What exactly about the ToE fulfills this condition?
( Atheism does not imply or require materialism, btw. )
quote:
but in the broadest sense 'evolution' deals with changes in some non-random direction.
This is just simply wrong. There is no other way to put. Evolution does not deal with change in a non-random direction. This a creationist straw-man.
quote:
*********** SYNOPSIS OF THE ME ***********
Most of it isn't evolution, and for that matter it isn't even 'metaphysics.' It is physics-- ie. dealing with the natural world, or dealing with observable phenomena. The METAPHYSIC involved is empiricism, not the structures built upon that foundation. Why not attack that instead of arguing this convoluted nonsense? You are calling the branches the tree, Joralex.
quote:
they are actually promoting ME - the completely materialistic, naturalistic worldview of the universe as summarized above.
Why not call the ME 'the completely materialistic, naturalistic worldview of the universe' instead of tagging your diversionary and misleading label on it? There are already perfectly good terms, which have been in use for longer than you have been alive I'll wager, for everything you state, yet you insist upon your redefinitions? Why? I makes no sense. The only answer I can think of is that this is one big semantic game designed to confused the issues.
It is a matter of scope. Evolution is a theory accounting for the changes in life-forms through time. Period. It is not the study of the fundamental components of reality. The ToE co-opts, or assumes-- as does all science-- a rather fuzzy form of empiricism. The ToE is a child of empiricism, not its parent or its equivalent.
Put another way, evolution is based upon observation, like all science. This ought to at once tell you that it is not a metaphysic. The metaphysical structure UNDER which it operates is blatantly stated at the onset. Why is this difficult to grasp?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Joralex, posted 03-31-2003 10:49 AM Joralex has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 67 (36045)
04-01-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Mister Pamboli
04-01-2003 9:05 PM


Re: SE versus ME
quote:
Thus, for example, a Deist could hold a metaphysical view that the existence of matter was entirely dependent on God, and that the reasons for matter's existence are to be found in His Will, without for a moment dropping a naturalistic belief in how matter interacts.
... very similar to the way Bishop Berkeley considered things, at least in respect to the world-- Berkeley thought the world was mind-- being entirely dependent upon God, but otherwise functioning naturalistically. Just a note.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-01-2003 9:05 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 67 (36147)
04-02-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
03-29-2003 11:42 PM


Well... I've got several posts now dangling. Whatever am I to make of that?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 03-29-2003 11:42 PM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 67 (36332)
04-05-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Joralex
04-05-2003 9:18 AM


Re: Any clearer? hmmm.... not really
quote:
One more time : among other things, a metaphysic seeks to provide a foundation for all of reality... a metaphysic is a sort of filter through which all events are interpreted and studied as a unified 'whole' ('cosmos' or 'universe').
Do you intend to address any of my direct responses to this claim? This subject came up as far back as Post #2, but #36 and #40 more directly address it. I'd hate to think that you are not responding because you can't respond. Of course, you aren't addressing anyone else either, just repeating yourself and ignoring the objections we've posted.
EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
EvC Forum: Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Joralex, posted 04-05-2003 9:18 AM Joralex 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