Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 166 of 198 (204380)
05-02-2005 5:11 PM


oops...double post.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-02-2005 05:16 PM

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 167 of 198 (204381)
05-02-2005 5:14 PM


I would just like to take the time to thank crashfrog and PaulK for their in-depth responses. They've certainly given me much to ponder over the next few months as I read more about this topic as related to evolution.
I would also like to thank NosyNed, mick, and paisano for their contributions as well. Edit: Sylas and holmes and loudmouth's input are welcomed as well. (I hope I'm not forgetting anyone).
Thanks to this thread, I've come across a few articles by Pope Benedict XVI which I'll be reading further to get a better idea of the Catholic concept of evolution, and I thank others for the links to the concepts of Population Genetics in relation to evolutionary theories.
I still have some misgivings to the merging of the Scriptural account of creation with the theory of evolution -- but this is solely based on my personal understnading of the Scriptures.
Having said that, I think I understand it a bit better now (and in more of a positive light) than I did before.
To that end, I thank everyone here.
I'll be back sometime with questions regarding the nature of the Scriptures and how one can reconcile evolutionary thinking with it to the point that original sin is not compromised by it.
I realize that others have suggested ways of thinking of this, such as applying solely to spiritual death, but I haven't been able to accept them yet. I don't think it's impossible, but I admit I just haven't heard it expressed in a good enough word formula yet.
Not yet anyway.
Take care guys.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-02-2005 05:16 PM

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2899 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 168 of 198 (205192)
05-05-2005 7:58 AM


Percy could be right
Is it possible the forum has worked?

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 169 of 198 (206624)
05-09-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by PaulK
05-01-2005 5:38 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
PaulK, although I've deeply appreciated many of the responses in this thread (and I appreciate the insights given by all including yourself), I thought I would reply to your post here just for clarification's sake.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Do you believe that the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms?
If you do, then I don't think Johnson is wrong in making this distinction.
PaulK writes:
Of course it is not direct evidence of common ancestry. And I am not aware of anyone who has suggested that it is. So where is the evidence that Johnson's accusation has any merit at all ?
Actually, Issaac Asimov's New Guide to Science cited the peppered moth example as being sufficient to prove the whole theory.
Likewise, Mark Ridley asserted that "All that is needed to prove evolution is observed microevolution added to the philosophical doctrine of uniformitarianism which (in the form that is needed here) underlies all science."
I guess it comes down to what one means by the term "biological evolution." According to one college text book Life; The Science of Biology*, "biological evolution is a change over time in the genetic composition of members of a population. Changes that take effect over a small number of generations constitute microevolution. Changes that take centuries, millennia, or longer to be completed are called macroevolution."
*This is a textbook that many used for their Biology major at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Where's the honesty when someone simply avoids answering the following questions?
PaulK writes:
There's no dishonesty in pointing out that irrelevant questions are irrelevant and refusing to deal with them in this context. The honesty of asking them in this subthread is what you should be questioning.
Yes. But I had said before that my quoting of Johnson was to highlight that there is indeed a materialist mindset to it's development.
What seems to have started off this convolution of responses back and forth was the following paraphrase:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
I've bolded the key word in conjunction with the definition which seems to have spurred this sub-thread: trick & treat it as proof of the complete evolutionary system.
When Johnson stated this, he wasn't suggesting that there is some vast "conspiracy theory" to suppress creationism. He seems to be indicating that evolution itself (the logical explantion for relationships) remains a "fact", by which it implied that it is an "inescapable deduction" from the fact of relationship.
Johnson noted Gould's article Evolution as Fact and Theory, which explained the distinction bt citing the fact and theory of gravity:
Stephen Jay Gould writes:
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in maid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be identified.
In Johnson's opinion, this analogy is spurious. And to some extant I agree with him.
1) We observe directly that apples fall when dropped, but we do not observe a common ancestor for modern apes and humans.
2) What we do observe is that apes and humans are physcially and biochemically more like each other than they are like rabbits, snakes or trees for example.
The ape-like common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, which purports to explain how these greater and lesser similarities came about.
The theory is certainly more than plausible, and (unlike Johnson) I'm much more willing to listen than most "creationists". In many ways, I'd probably be more like Behe than Johnson -- and Behe's adherence is only minimal to the point that most would consider him more of a theistic evolutionist than strict creationist.
However, as Johnson correctly notes, it still remains possible that this hypothesis within the theory may nonetheless be false. The true explanation for natural relationships may be something much more mysterious.
Because Gould appears to draw the line between fact and theory in the wrong place, his distinction is, to some extent virtually meaningless. I had tried to expand on this distinction earlier (and made an appeal for others to interject their thoughts) when I advanced the predictive values of the theory of gravitation in comparison to the theory of evolution earlier.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
For example, a satellite heads toward Jupiter -- in the process, it accelerates because it is "falling toward" Jupiter. Then, it passes fairly close to the planet and starts speeding away from it. However, at that point, the satellite starts slowing down because gravity is pulling it back toward the planet.
Note analogy: Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species is falling toward some kind of energy equilibrium within its respective biosphere, that it's evolution then takes on added energy? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
From that description, it would seem like the net effect of gravity assist is zero -- the satellite gains speed as it falls toward the planet but then loses it as it heads away.
Note analogy: Again, is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species is falling toward some kind of energy equilibrium within its respective biosphere, that it's evolution then takes on added energy? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
The thing that makes gravity assist work is the fact that the planet is in motion in its orbit. Jupiter, for example, is about 500,000,000 miles (806,000,000 kilometers) away from the sun, which means that the circumference of its orbit is 3,140,000,000 miles (5,060,000,000 kilometers).
Note analogy: Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species respective bioshpere is itself evoliving the species also evoloves in accordance within its respective biosphere? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Jupiter travels that distance in about 12 years, so it is moving through space at about 30,000 mph (48,000 kph). If the satellite is moving in the same direction as Jupiter in its orbit, it can actually increase its speed by 30,000 mph! That is a huge speed increase, and it's completely free.
Note analogy: Looking thorugh the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern of various species matching the pace of their biosphere's evolution? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
The problem with gravity assist is that you have to wait for the planets to line up correctly for it to work. That is why missions have to fly within certain time windows.
Note analogy: Looking through the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern where specific biospheres are lined up corretly for evoltution to work? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Admittedly the evidence of the earth's geological history is seriously eroded over time -- something which some would claim undermines the theory of evolutions overall value in the first place.
However, going past this observation, can at least some mathimatical formulae be "glimpsed" in the eroded fossil record, a formula which could at least partially lead to predictive statements which could then be validated with new discoveries?
PaulK writes:
Well Bohlin WOULD agree with Johnson - but that wouldn't make it true. There are plenty of Christians who support evolution against Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
There are also plenty of Christians who support young-earth creationism -- and that certainly wouldn't make it true either.
PaulK writes:
However the fact that there are knowledgable people who are definitely NOT materialists and yet accept evolution IS evidence against Bohlin and Johnson's assertion.
But what about the "knowledgable people" who think that Christians are basically crazy for thinking that they can reconcile evolution with any kind of benevolent God-like creative force?
I'm sure many are familiar with Gould's and Dawkin's thoughts on this matter. They apparently answer this in the negative sense. Dawkins himself has gone on record saying, "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from an agnostic position and towards atheism."
I'm sure people are familar with the litany of statements often quoted by Gould and Dawkins in this regard. However, there are many more people established researchers within evolutionary fields who hold similar positions.
For example, William Provine readilly concedes:
William Provine writes:
A widespead theological view now exists that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetactable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism.
When an attourney asked Provine whether there is "an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position....or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door," Provine's response was straightforward:
William Provine writes:
You indeed have to check your brains.
Apparently, Provine thinks the term "Christian evolutionist" is an oxymoron.
George Simpson Gaylord similarly noted, that "man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him mind."
Gaylord goes on to say:
George Simpson Gaylord writes:
To say that God guides an inherently unguided natural process, or that God designed a natural mechanism as a substitute for his design, is clearly contradictory.
Nancy Percy, who has written extensively on science and faith insists that "you can have God or natural selection, but not both." She even pointed out that Darwin himself recognized that the presense of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory:
Nancy Percy writes:
If we admit God into the process, Darwin argues, then God would ensure that only 'the right variations occured...and natural selection would be superfluous.
Admittedly, these people do not speak for all people who hold to evolutionary theories for the speciation of life. However, it is my observation that the majority of the "heavy hitters" within the biological sciences seem to saying "nay" to the concept of merging evolution and God into some type of harmonious process theology.
Young-earth creationists may be dead wrong about how they attempt to poke holes in theory of evolution, yet they consistently agree with the athiestic evolutionists who say that the two cannot be reconciled.
Who is correct -- the atheistic evolutionists & hard-core creationists or the theistic evolutionists?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Why are you lumping my references to Bohlin and Miller into one theory when I quoted them for two distinct reasons -- or is this how proponents of evolutionary theories usually perceive data?
PaulK writes:
I didn't lump together YOUR references. I simply mentioned Miller as a Christian who accepts evolution and is prominent in opposing creationism and ID - and therefore as evidence against Bohlin.
Fair enough.
PaulK writes:
I won't bother to ask whether the tactic of grabbing any excuse to make false attacks on opponents is typical of anti-evolutionits. I already know that it is.
Who said they didn't? I think everyone here knows that anti-evolutionits will use any excuse to make false attacks on opponents.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
I "know" this because whenever people like Dawkin's or Gould make the claims that appearance of design is an"illusion", they are revealing a naturalistic bias. This naturalstic bias is even more true whenever someone basically says that they "know" this is so because thier naturalistic philosophy demands it.
PaulK writes:
i.e. your claim of bias is based on a dislike for their conclusions. In other words it is your bias that is showing.
Actually, just like the whole evolution/creation debate, I think it's demonstrating bias on both sides. In other words, just as Pope Benedict XVI thinks that our origins are based on both "evolution and creation", I also think that both evolutionists and creationists are biased in favor of their own paradigm.
Furthermore, there are atheistic evolutionists that admit that there is a bias in favor of philosophical materialism when the theory of evolution is concerned. This doesn't mean that they're giving up the theory of evolution any time soon -- but they are willing to admit that philosophical materialism plays a part in evolutionary thinking.
For example, Michael Ruse has noted the following:
Michael Ruse writes:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘ Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.
Similarly, Richard Lewontin proposed the following:
Richard Lewontin writes:
We take the side of science (evolution) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to full fill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
And maybe your perception is simply an illusion based on your own mental constructs.
See what I'm saying?
I don't really care what your "impressions" are.
PaulK writes:
Except the part you were replying to did not deal with MY impressions but the impression Johnson is trying to create.
So what you are really saying is that you don't care if what Johnson says is true or not. You're going to support it anyway.
But PaulK, I've already given my own "impressions" and noted that they were worthless too.
These were those impressions:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
As others have observed, Darwin constructed a theory of nature that, in its every particular, reinforced the operating assumptions of the Industrial Age he lived in.
For example, he saw the same principles of division of labor at work in nature. After reading Malthus, he came to realize that, as in human society, populations bred beyond their means, leaving survivors and losers in the effort to exist.
Likewise, in the first volume of A System of Synthetic Philosophy, entitled First Principles (1862), Spencer argued that all phenomena could be explained in terms of a lengthy process of evolution in things. This account of evolution provided a complete and 'predetermined' structure for the kind of variation noted by Darwin -- and Darwin's respect for Spencer was significant.
Darwin's descriptions relied heavily on machine imagery. He came to personally view livings things as the sum total of parts assembled. Even the origins of life were seen within the biological equivalent of nature’s assembly line (morphology from micro-organisms straight up to humanity).
In short, as others have pointed out, Darwin borrowed just about everything he experienced from the popular culture of his time and transposed them onto nature.
I confess that, as Sylas has pointed out, evolution is no longer percieved within the 19th century concept of linear progress -- the assembly line of life if you will. Rather, it seems to be a long-term tendency and a trend.
Yet it still in no way precludes crisis and lengthy setbacks. In fact, such crisis seem to be an unavoidable part of evolution. Although life continues to expand, it has also suffered repeated crisis and mass extinctions which continue to occur when one global ecosystem has reached its limits and collapses.
Obviously the theory has changed since Darwins' time. Yet, to some extent, people are still consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the similar context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. In other words, the theory of evolution seems to be a mirror image of the scientific method broadcast over the origins of species -- noting an analogy between "trial and error" in contrast to "prediction and modification" or even "natural selection and mutation" -- it appears to be, at least on some level, exactly what a scientifically minded person would expect to find.
I'm not trying to single you out. I don't care what Johnson's, Behe's, Dawkin's, or Gould's "impressions" are either.
In other words, I want to get past "impressions" and really try to envision some type of experiment that would prove conclusively that man could be descended "with modification" from another species of primate.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Then why do researchers who engage in the scientific method sometimes conclude that God doesn't exist or wasn't involved via their own scientific observations?
PaulK writes:
Do they publiush such claims in the formal scientific literature ? If not your claim is irrelevant since that omission concedes that the conclusion is beyond science.
There are no peer reviewed papers published within formal scientific literature which deals with dysteleology?
If so, I have to confess that I am very surprised by this.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Notwithstanding this, Gould still claimed that Darwinism is "science" because of the methodology Darwin used in arriving at his conclusions. And I've never said that Gould said that Darwinism is not science for that matter. What are you getting at?
PaulK writes:
Since you didn't get it the first time the point is that Gould said that evolution was a fact, as he defined it. In the very essay you took the definition from. And yet here you are taking a position that Gould identified as "perverse". If he knew more than you on the subject how can you be so certain that Gould was wrong ?
As I noted above, because Gould appears to draw the line between fact and theory in the wrong place, his distinction is, to some extent virtually meaningless.
I'm not saying that Gould doesn't know about evolution. I do, however, think that he could have more clearly marked of his definition of a "fact" more accurately before he passed away.
As I said before, I had tried to expand on this distinction earlier (and made an appeal for others to interject their thoughts) when I advanced the predictive values of the theory of gravitation in comparison to the theory of evolution earlier.
Unfortunately, no one seems to want to approach it. It's either considered virtually useless, somewhat inadequate, an improper analogy, or something to that effect -- and, just like everything else I've been trying to explain in this thread, no one seems very interested in helping me to refine the ideas better.
Everyone seems to be gung ho to ignore the theoretical things I'm been trying to talk about and instead jump right to all the excellent scientific reasons why evolution is the best materialist theory regarding the speciation of life on earth -- which is pointless for me since I already agree that with all the excellent scientific reasons why evolution is the best materialist theory regarding the speciation of life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2005 5:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2005 11:45 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2005 3:35 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-10-2005 9:53 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 178 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 1:12 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 170 of 198 (206632)
05-09-2005 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-09-2005 11:09 PM


Facts and philosophies
That is a big and well constructed and argued post Ex (if I may call you by your first name )
I'm not going to take on the whole thing all at once. I think others might touch on different bits. However I think there are two main points that I would like to talk about:
1) The separation of theory and fact regarding human ancestry
and
2) Philosophical naturalism vs Methodolgical naturalism (a distinction that I have come to understand because of spending too much time around here )
The first one:
2) What we do observe is that apes and humans are physcially and biochemically more like each other than they are like rabbits, snakes or trees for example.
The ape-like common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, which purports to explain how these greater and lesser similarities came about.
One problem with this is the difficulty of being so sure that we can mark a bit of our "knowledge" as "fact" and another bit as "not fact". For anything not totally obvious we only get to consider something more or less likely to be "correct". If we throw our apple out in front of us we would say it is a "fact" that it follows a curved path through space. In "fact" it follows a straight path through spacetime.
The human ancestor "theory" is not just based on the genetic information you give as part of the support for it. There is the chain of fossil specimens that are less and less like us as we go back in time. There is the evolutionary details of other forms of like bith extinct and extant. There is the correlation of that information with the genetic information.
At some point, when you have piled up enough such details the likelyhood of the human ancestor theory becomes great enough that you have a hard time saying it is less probable than something that seems to be "obviously" fact.
The saying goes that you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. I think that is only approximately correct. As facts are not all so clearly on the "fact side" of the line different individuals might have something on one side while another person might put that thing on the other side.
However, given everything we know the "theory" of human ancestry is too solid to consider it to be different from the "fact" of the apple falling. (which it is perhaps not doing in the way we thought it was).
So I would agree with Gould in this specific example. However, we can agree to disagree about the use of the word "fact" and instead say "overwhelmingly likely to be true idea".
Second :
Methodological naturalism vs Philosophical naturalism
I will first offer my own distinction.
Philosophical naturalism is the philosophical, unprovable and not disprovable either, idea that the natural is all there is.
Methodological naturalism is the philosophy which says that we can only learn about the [b]natural[/i] world by using natural inputs.
In your discussion you mix the two up. Dawkins holds to philosophical naturalism. He says that studying evolution forces one to move to this position. However, I disagree. The beliefs of philosophical naturalism are a postition taking without direct supporting evidence. It is a leap (of 'faith'?) made on a lack of evidence.
Gould held to methodological naturalism but I don't think would support philosophical naturalism even if he was of a mind to agree that it might be correct.
The ones who agree with Dawkins are, in my mind, not those who simple adhere to methodological naturalism. Those who support Gould are the literalists who say if evolution is correct then the Bible can not be. They make the some kind of leap that Dawkins does. They seem to think that methodological naturalism saying something about the natural world can lead to conclusions about the supernatural world. They then let their philosphical SUPERnaturalism affect how they see the natural world. This is as bad as Dawkins letting his methodological NATURALISM affect the philosophical side and think that something SUPERnatural has been "proven". This is what the theistic evolutionists (and others whatever you call them) disagree with. They keep their philosophical supernaturalism and methodological naturalism separated.
It is clearly very bad theology to mix up the two (philosophical and methodological naturalism). This is supported by history: saying that the "Bible says" specific things about unknown aspects of the natural world has proved to be wrong when the natural world proves to be different. It is also supported by the degree of denial that those who want to allow their philosophical SUPERnaturalism affect their view of the natural world. They must deny not only evolution but also physics (most all of it) and geology (pretty much all of that too).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-09-2005 11:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-10-2005 7:13 PM NosyNed has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 171 of 198 (206663)
05-10-2005 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-09-2005 11:09 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
've not read Asimov's Guide to Science but based on Asimov's reputatin I doubt that he would make such a careless mistake as you suggest. Especially when you don't provide a reference beyond the title, suggesting that you don't have the book in front of you.
A little searching and if found a page from the ICR which indicates that Asimov specifically referred to the peperred moth as an example of evolution in action - as proof against the claim that such had not been observed.
Thr Ridley quote is shorn of context and given no reference at all. In the textbook Evolution (2nd Edition) Chapter 3 he gives several examples of variation, none of whicb is the peppered moth. One of these is the ring species of the Ensatina salamander in California, which provides strong evidence that microevolution can lead to speciation. Ultimately his argument is that there is no place in the taxonomic hierarchy where we can call a break and say that evolution cannot account for that level. So it would certainly be false to say that Ridley's argument relied on a single example or that he regarded the relatively simple colour change in the peperred moth to be adequate evidence for the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.
You are right to point out that my objection to Johnson's claim was the unfounded accusation against evolutionists. And I say that he is equally to be distrusted in his claims about materialist philosophy.
Your response is that Johnson did not claim that there was a conspiracy. Well I suppose you thnk that it is all right to lie and make false accusations against people who disagree with you so long as you don't invent a conspiracy
Gould's distinction between fact and theory is fine. Your objection seems to be that he does not draw it in a place which is rhetorically convenient for you. Johnson's argument is that common descent is infereed from data rather than directly observed. However that is not sufficient to state that common descent is not a fact under Gould's definition, which you yourself quoted earlier in the thread. The argument you quote from Johnson simply dismisses the evidence without justification.
I note that you are finally trying to get specific about your mathematical points. Unfortunately we should not expect there to be detailed mathematical treatments to be inferred from fossil evidence. Whie we can measure rates of morphological change and see that they are consistent with evolution there is litttle more available. Analyses of the evidence is in better shape and we can infer relationships through the construction of cladograms. Genetic evidence taken from modern life is in even better shape - genetic "clock" evidence can be used to identify branch points in ancestry.
However we should not expect to produce long range predictions of future evolution - because evolution is dependent on the variations that become available through mutation and on a species interaction with its environment neither of which cna usefully be predicted. The best we can do is make short-range predictions about the spread of genes.
On to one more subject"
quote:
quote:
However the fact that there are knowledgable people who are definitely NOT materialists and yet accept evolution IS evidence against Bohlin and Johnson's assertion.
But what about the "knowledgable people" who think that Christians are basically crazy for thinking that they can reconcile evolution with any kind of benevolent God-like creative force?
What about them ? Many of their arguments work even better against creationism than they do against the forms of theistic evolution espoused by people like Miller.
Provine's argument is against Deism, not Christianity.
Simpson's quote is not relevant to Miller's position
Pearcey is an ID supporter (and, not so far as I know especially knowledgable in the relevant science) and therefore directly oppsoed to acceptance of evolution
Even if the materialists are right (and IMHO the God-concept is too slippery to be so easily caught) it is not even evidence that evolution is based on materialist philosophy - it is more loikely to be the case that it is beause materialim is true. Whereas the existence of non-materialists who accept evolution is strong evidence that any such basis is at least inobvious, even to people with a good understanding of the theory and the evidence..
(If you really want to investigate the matter I would strongly suggest reading Miller's book FInding Darwin\s God where he sets out his view.)
I also strognly suggest that you not rely on creationist and ID sources as you seem to be doing. THe Ruse quote is well-known nd he does not deny that evolution is valid science. That it is a religion to some people is not adequate to support Johnson's claim. Lewontin speaks of science's commitment to methodological, not philosphical materialism (Johnson is known for conflating the two).
Indeed it is significant that you rely entirely on quotes and opinions - not once do you actually try to make a direct case for Johnson and Bohlin's claim. Is it because there IS no case ?
quote:
Except the part you were replying to did not deal with MY impressions but the impression Johnson is trying to create.So what you are really saying is that you don't care if what Johnson says is true or not. You're going to support it anyway.
But PaulK, I've already given my own "impressions" and noted that they were worthless too. [/quote]
And there you confirm what I said. Rather than actually addressing the point I made you come out with another irrelevance. Obviously you don't care that Johnson is a dishonest propagandist and will invoke any excuse to avoid dealing with that fact.
As for your claim that everyone is "gung-ho" to ignore the theoretical issues I remind you that this sub-thread started with a message on a single point. What you actually seem to be complaining about is the failure of your attempt to bury that point under a mountain of diversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-09-2005 11:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-10-2005 8:25 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 180 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-03-2005 7:07 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 172 of 198 (206723)
05-10-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-09-2005 11:09 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
I once more note that the sheer length some of your posts prevents me from reading them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-09-2005 11:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-10-2005 8:28 PM Percy has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 173 of 198 (206844)
05-10-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by NosyNed
05-09-2005 11:45 PM


Re: Facts and philosophies
NosyNed writes:
That is a big and well constructed and argued post Ex (if I may call you by your first name )
Thank you, NosyNed, and no problem about the "Ex" -- it seems as though others might disagree with the idea that my post was well constructed though.
MosyNed writes:
I'm not going to take on the whole thing all at once. I think others might touch on different bits. However I think there are two main points that I would like to talk about:
Don't worry about it. Actually, the points you make below clarify many things.
NosyNed writes:
1) The separation of theory and fact regarding human ancestry
and
2) Philosophical naturalism vs Methodolgical naturalism (a distinction that I have come to understand because of spending too much time around here )
Hmmm...this was an interesting distinction that I was not aware of.
NosyNed writes:
The first one:
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
2) What we do observe is that apes and humans are physcially and biochemically more like each other than they are like rabbits, snakes or trees for example.
The ape-like common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, which purports to explain how these greater and lesser similarities came about.
NosyNed writes:
One problem with this is the difficulty of being so sure that we can mark a bit of our "knowledge" as "fact" and another bit as "not fact". For anything not totally obvious we only get to consider something more or less likely to be "correct". If we throw our apple out in front of us we would say it is a "fact" that it follows a curved path through space. In "fact" it follows a straight path through spacetime.
The human ancestor "theory" is not just based on the genetic information you give as part of the support for it. There is the chain of fossil specimens that are less and less like us as we go back in time. There is the evolutionary details of other forms of like bith extinct and extant. There is the correlation of that information with the genetic information.
At some point, when you have piled up enough such details the likelyhood of the human ancestor theory becomes great enough that you have a hard time saying it is less probable than something that seems to be "obviously" fact.
The saying goes that you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. I think that is only approximately correct. As facts are not all so clearly on the "fact side" of the line different individuals might have something on one side while another person might put that thing on the other side.
However, given everything we know the "theory" of human ancestry is too solid to consider it to be different from the "fact" of the apple falling. (which it is perhaps not doing in the way we thought it was).
So I would agree with Gould in this specific example. However, we can agree to disagree about the use of the word "fact" and instead say "overwhelmingly likely to be true idea".
That's basically how I see the theory of evolution too. Based on solely materialisitc causes, it is certainly overwhelmingly likely to be the true idea behind the speciation of all life on earth.
My only concern with this is that if God actually was directly involved in the speciation of life on earth in a physical and tangible way, a reliance on solely materialistic causalities would tend to miss whatever evidence might actually be left behind to indicate this (if any).
In other words, it does seem possible to me that employing a methodological naturalism may still set up a filter in the mind of the researcher which could result in them missing potentially valuable data.
In order to overcome this, my hope was to try to present some kind of experiment that would move the theory past the "overwhelmingly likely to be the true idea" and into the "observable fact" stage -- an experiment that lead to directly observing a human being that is descended with modification from another species of primate.
I admit that it was unethical, but I still thought it would've been interesting to discuss.
NosyNed writes:
Second :
Methodological naturalism vs Philosophical naturalism
I will first offer my own distinction.
Philosophical naturalism is the philosophical, unprovable and not disprovable either, idea that the natural is all there is.
Methodological naturalism is the philosophy which says that we can only learn about the natural world by using natural inputs.
ok...I'm a bit awed by this. I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I never noticed this distinction before.
NosyNed writes:
In your discussion you mix the two up. Dawkins holds to philosophical naturalism. He says that studying evolution forces one to move to this position. However, I disagree. The beliefs of philosophical naturalism are a postition taking without direct supporting evidence. It is a leap (of 'faith'?) made on a lack of evidence.
Gould held to methodological naturalism but I don't think would support philosophical naturalism even if he was of a mind to agree that it might be correct.
The ones who agree with Dawkins are, in my mind, not those who simply adhere to methodological naturalism. Those who support Gould are the literalists who say if evolution is correct then the Bible can not be. They make the some kind of leap that Dawkins does. They seem to think that methodological naturalism saying something about the natural world can lead to conclusions about the supernatural world. They then let their philosphical SUPERnaturalism affect how they see the natural world. This is as bad as Dawkins letting his methodological NATURALISM affect the philosophical side and think that something SUPERnatural has been "proven". This is what the theistic evolutionists (and others whatever you call them) disagree with. They keep their philosophical supernaturalism and methodological naturalism separated.
It is clearly very bad theology to mix up the two (philosophical and methodological naturalism). This is supported by history: saying that the "Bible says" specific things about unknown aspects of the natural world has proved to be wrong when the natural world proves to be different. It is also supported by the degree of denial that those who want to allow their philosophical SUPERnaturalism affect their view of the natural world. They must deny not only evolution but also physics (most all of it) and geology (pretty much all of that too).
Hmmm....thank you. That clarifies many things -- or at least opens a new distinction that I've never noticed before. And it's explained much more clearly than many messages I've read so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2005 11:45 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2005 7:29 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 190 by wj, posted 06-05-2005 4:05 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 174 of 198 (206849)
05-10-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-10-2005 7:13 PM


Re: Facts and philosophies
My only concern with this is that if God actually was directly involved in the speciation of life on earth in a physical and tangible way, a reliance on solely materialistic causalities would tend to miss whatever evidence might actually be left behind to indicate this (if any).ok...I'm a bit awed by this. I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I never noticed this distinction before.
If you are embarrassed so should I be. I had this pointed out to me here about a year or so ago. It isn't anything I realized on my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-10-2005 7:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 175 of 198 (206858)
05-10-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by PaulK
05-10-2005 3:35 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
PaulK writes:
(If you really want to investigate the matter I would strongly suggest reading Miller's book FInding Darwin\s God where he sets out his view.)
Thank you. I will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2005 3:35 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 176 of 198 (206859)
05-10-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Percy
05-10-2005 9:53 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
My apologies Percy. It's basically how I write.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Percy, posted 05-10-2005 9:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
WomanOfPurpose
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 198 (209710)
05-19-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


Science and Pseudo-science used in the play of Galileo and in the Longitude video
This is really just a question that I wanted to ask. There were major advances in the development of scientific method during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. There were also roadblocks to scientific advancement from practices of the past, which we today refer to as pseudo-science. Now the characteristics of science and pseudo-science dramatized in the play Galileo and the Longitude video series how can you discuss at least one or more present day examples of this conflict? Also could you help to support your idea with examples, statistics, and quotes please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 178 of 198 (212276)
05-29-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
05-09-2005 11:09 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Ex, I just want to say that was a very impressive post.
I've gotten on this thread a little late in the game and will probably sit it out, but that was an awesome piece of argument there.
I will add one thought, our concept of what constitutes nature or physical reality is being pushed and altered significantly in the field of quantum physics. It may be that QM observations is resulting in an eclipsing of aspects of whether naturalism alone is valid or not since we may very well be beginning to study what has been considered the spiritual realm and spiritual principles. In other words, if it's real, it's part of reality whether known before as spiritual, supernatural, natural, material, or whatever.
This message has been edited by randman, 05-29-2005 01:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-09-2005 11:09 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-03-2005 6:20 PM randman has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 179 of 198 (213991)
06-03-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by randman
05-29-2005 1:12 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
randman, thanks for the feedback and compliment.
randman writes:
I will add one thought, our concept of what constitutes nature or physical reality is being pushed and altered significantly in the field of quantum physics. It may be that QM observations is resulting in an eclipsing of aspects of whether naturalism alone is valid or not since we may very well be beginning to study what has been considered the spiritual realm and spiritual principles.
That's a thought that I had too: what if science is actially peering into the realm of the "spiritual" and not even realizing it yet?
I suspect in the end that all things considered supernatural will one day be understood to be quite natural -- but that our access to it is specifically limited to certain points of contact where the things which were formerly believed to be "supernatural" actually are found to merge with that which we commonly refer to today as "natural".
In other words, what we call supernatural acts of God "now" will probably one day be considered a pseudo-science because God will be found to be quite "naturally" present in the universe all along -- even if we couldn't see him.
randman writes:
In other words, if it's real, it's part of reality whether known before as spiritual, supernatural, natural, material, or whatever.
Exactly.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-03-2005 06:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by randman, posted 05-29-2005 1:12 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 8:16 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 180 of 198 (214002)
06-03-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by PaulK
05-10-2005 3:35 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
PaulK, here's a few extra clarificiations
PaulK writes:
Your response is that Johnson did not claim that there was a conspiracy. Well I suppose you thnk that it is all right to lie and make false accusations against people who disagree with you so long as you don't invent a conspiracy.
No. I think it's ok to make mistakes if he is mistaken on his points, just like it's ok to for researchers to make mistakes when interpreting the data from their hypothesis.
You are making claims that Johnson is lying and making false accusations against people who disagree with him.
I'm just saying that if he is wrong, it's because he's not properly understanding the theory.
The issue of him being a liar and flinging false accusations is actually more akin to a conspiracy theory in itself.
PaulK writes:
And there you confirm what I said. Rather than actually addressing the point I made you come out with another irrelevance. Obviously you don't care that Johnson is a dishonest propagandist and will invoke any excuse to avoid dealing with that fact.
*sigh*
PaulK writes:
As for your claim that everyone is "gung-ho" to ignore the theoretical issues I remind you that this sub-thread started with a message on a single point. What you actually seem to be complaining about is the failure of your attempt to bury that point under a mountain of diversion.
PaulK, would you care to bring this discussion of evolution, science & pseudo-science to the formal debate area?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-03-2005 07:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2005 3:35 AM PaulK 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