[QUOTE][b]Yes, I agree that it is "cool" for someone to look up to you and respect your authority. However, such can be abused, and it is the abuse that is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Sure — and the abuse of authority by churches and religious bodies is wrong too, if and when it occurs? I presume you agree.
[QUOTE][b]I will have to take odds with you about this quote of yours:
In the case of evolution a 'demonstrated truth' could well be the demonstrated relationship of species, the succession of forms over a time scale sufficient for their evolution...There are clearly similarities and differences between species. It is begging the question to say that because there are similarities between species that evolution must be true. The differences could be irreconcilable.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I agree completely. I didn’t say that the similarities prove evolution - I said the relationship of species could be a demonstrated truth. Much more is needed — including general laws governing the possible processes, observations etc.
It
could be the case that a demonstrated truth of related species could not be connected with other demonstrated truths and other observations and could not be colligated with these under general laws.
[QUOTE][b]As to the second part, the succession of forms is purely a biased reading of the fossil record. If, for example, one hundred years from now a scientist digs up the skelaton of the Elephant Man he could conclude that he has found a new species. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
He would be a very poor scientist indeed if he did — but it’s just a bad example! The taxonomy of fossils is an extremely detailed study which proceeds using the same techniques as have been applied to living species - it includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain from our OED definition. (DNA fingerprinting has revolutionized the techniques of taxonomy for living species — sadly not applicable for fossil species.)
Identification of species isn’t really the problem — identifying the relationships between species found is the issue, especially related species found at exclusively different time periods. There are those (generally Young-earthers) who argue that the time periods are illusory — and there are those (transformed cladists) who argue that even if true, no inference of descent can be drawn.
However, in the first case the Young-Earthers must reject methods which have proved trustworthy (not foolproof, but trustworthy) in other fields, which fall under general laws, and which are to some degree demonstrably accurate.
In the second case, transformed cladists have to reject inferential reasoning which has proven trustworthy — not foolproof in other fields. (Personally I have a lot of time for transformed cladists: the approach appeals to my skepticism.)
To reject evolution as mistaken is one thing — as unscientific is quite another. I think the above examples clearly show that evolution is assessed on a scientific footing. The processes used in studying evolution seem scientific in every respect.
[b] [QUOTE]"...physical laws governing genetic order..." woould be a good demonstration of evolution if such can be proved. So, again, I will rephrase my question:
How can you genetically prove that a single-celled animal can become a multi-celled animal over time? [/b][/QUOTE]
The physical laws I was referring to cover such things as the chemical bonds in DNA. I was trying to point out that genetics is governed by these laws proven in other fields, thus the study of genetics in evolution is colligated under (not proved by) these laws. Thus, if I claimed that evolution depended on a process that required one atom of Hydrogen to bond to 4 of Carbon, I would be unscientific because I was breaking laws which govern the process.
Special creation tends to break such physical laws because it requires interactions with supernatural forces not which — by definition — can not be colligated. This is one of the reasons special creation as an explanation is not scientific.
Inferring that a single-celled animal can be become multi-celled is not unscientific. But let me be clear, I have no concern to prove evolution — I am concerned with whether the processes used to infer it, study it and evaluate it are sound. Perhaps someone else will answer your question with an answer rooted in genetics: it’s not an area I have much interest in.
[b] [QUOTE]Inferential logic used in other fields of science? Someone here accused me of misrepresenting communism though I have never mentioned it, but applying Darwinian logic to Political Science has had a devastating effect on government. Are you claiming that Social Darwinism is valid? If so, then Hitler's references to Evolution are legitimate? As well as Stalin? Mao? and Mussolini?[/b][/QUOTE]
Firstly I am not at all sure what you mean by Darwinian Logic - if you elaborate I will respond. Perhaps a separate thread for the logic of Darwinism?
Secondly, you get to this topic via inferential logic used in other fields of science — this is one of the reasons I half-heartedly objected to your use of the OED definition of science. For example, recent definitions in the Encarta dictionary give study of the physical world, systematic body of knowledge, and something studied or performed methodically. With this one can more accurately delineate Political Science from Physical Science.
Thirdly, the political implications. You mentioned this in an earlier post on another topic and I thought hard about whether to respond. I decided it best not to as I assumed you were lashing out thoughtlessly at being flamed. But I cannot ignore this now, can I?
Looking carefully at your comments in this mail, I am not sure you even have a point to make here — though you seem to be trying to suggest that
I hold Darwinism responsible for some political ills:
[b] [QUOTE]I want to emphasize that I have never used Social Darwinism as a means of refuting Evolution, but your statements seem to indicate that evolution has some kind of responsibility in inciting some of the greatest buthers history has ever seen. [/b][/QUOTE]
I assume this is an honest mistake and you have either misread me or confused me with someone else who did suggest that the theory of evolution has some kind of responsibility. It’s easily done in a busy forum, so a simple word of apology will suffice.
(Counts to 100 before continuing )
You will understand that there is no logic in moving from a
descriptive statement to a
prescriptive statement. American kids are fatter than Scottish kids has no implication whatsoever unless one adds new premises to it — such as being fat is a bad thing and something should be done to mitigate bad things. But none of this follows from the purely descriptive statement American kids are fatter than Scottish kids. And of course, even the new premises contain no information that can logically say what to do about it.
If Hitler or anyone else adds premises to an argument then they are responsible for the truth of the additional premises and the validity of the resulting new argument that follows from adding a new premise.
If Hitler or anyone else wishes to move from description to prescription, that is their responsibility alone.
Evolution is a purely descriptive science — it includes no prescriptions for living.
So, can I ask, do you have a point to make about the application of Darwinism by politicians — tyrants especially? Is there a difference between Hitler’s use of Darwinism and the use of holy scripture by the inquisition, the witch-hunters, the conquistadores, or Cromwell in Ireland amongst others?
[b] [QUOTE]Fundamentialism is more than taking a text literally. It is a closed mindset that only sees the world thought its rather limited set of presupposed values. There is also a narcissistic tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human. Evolutionists have defined "science" within their own limited values, thus, that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.[/b][/QUOTE]
Are you saying that evolutionists have a tendency to repudiate critics of those values as less than human? You cheeky monkey!
I think we can both agree that evolutionists can be arrogant and pompous — like any other group of our fallen species. I don’t know of any evolutionists who would even begin to think along the lines of that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific. There are certainly criticisms of evolution which are non-scientific — special creation for one, but any evolutionary biologist worthy of a degree should be able to comprehend the possibility of scientific objections to evolution.
[b] [QUOTE]A noble person is one who strives for something outside of his own selfish ends[/b][/QUOTE]
.
Sounds fine to me. Churchmen and scientists of many persuasions (including palaeontologists) and biologists, have often striven to achieve knowledge at the expense of their health, welfare and careers.
[b] [QUOTE]In seeking to serve God[/b][/QUOTE]
Ah — not seeking objective truth, then.
[b] [QUOTE]by submitting to the ridicule of their fellow scientists it seems that Creationists are serving a more noble goal.[/b][/QUOTE]
The argument from bathos is not one I have come across in the field of evolutionary debate before. However, I would like to start another thread on this issue of the motivation of scientists — I’ll think of a first post and get it started tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-26-2002]
™ Version 4.2
