Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A thought on Intelligence behind Design
Barryven
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 261 (48923)
08-06-2003 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by MrHambre
08-05-2003 6:18 PM


Re: Now That's Science!
MrHambre:
Quote: "Barry sees the evolutionary development of human intelligent creativity and decides that this must have been the purpose of the evolutionary process."
I' ve said that intelligent driven human creativity is a PRODUCT of evolution. I think that's verifiable.
What you attribute to me above I don't believe any more than I believe that the purpose of human experimentation with fire was to invent a gas stove... the gas stove wasn't the purpose, it was a product of the directional, intelligent driven human creative process... an intelligence created by evolution which is in the business of replication. And, I've said this repeatedly!!! Could Warren have been right when he accused some of you of building strawmen and then knocking them down??? I know you can do better than that!
I've directly addressed most of your questions the best I could and I've asked a number of questions and made statements earlier that you've not directly addressed.
And, I would be glad to share with you what I think might be the purpose of evolution if your interested. But, only after you respond directly to questions and statements I've made earlier. And, if you don't know which ones...ask and I will tell you.
Barry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by MrHambre, posted 08-05-2003 6:18 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by MrHambre, posted 08-06-2003 1:03 PM Barryven has not replied

  
Warren
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 261 (48931)
08-06-2003 12:01 PM


Mark<< ID is simply an unsupported assertion, an untestable hypothesis, & certainly an unfalsifiable one.>>
Recent studies in the philosophy of science suggest that philosophically neutral criteria do not exist that can define science narrowly enough to disqualify hypotheses of design without also disqualifying materialistic evolutionary hypotheses on identical grounds. Either science will be defined so narrowly as to disqualify both types of hypotheses, or science must be defined more broadly and the initial reasons for excluding opposing hypotheses evaporate. Thus, ID and blind watchmaking hypotheses appear to be methodologically equivalent with respect to a wide range of demarcation criteria--that is, both appear equally scientific or equally unscientific provided the same criteria are used to adjudicate their scientific status and provided philosophically neutral criteria are used to make such assessments.
I fail to see how ID hypotheses on the origin of life are any more unsupported, untestable, or unfalsifiable than non-teleological hypotheses on the origin of life.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 08-06-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 12:12 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 08-06-2003 1:48 PM Warren has not replied
 Message 248 by mark24, posted 08-06-2003 2:19 PM Warren has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 243 of 261 (48934)
08-06-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Warren
08-06-2003 12:01 PM


OK..I'll bite....propose a hypothesis of intelligent design
1. show how it can be falsified
2. provide supporting evidence
3. propose experiments that could be performed to test the hypothesis
Failing this it is not science.
Also you made a broad reference to "recent studies in the philosophy of science.." could you make this vague reference more specific i.e. which studies, by whom, were these studies peer reviewed or just posted as an opinion somewhere?
Edited to add: From your edit it appears that you do not know what the differences are between the theory of evolution and abiogenesis..do you know?
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 08-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Warren, posted 08-06-2003 12:01 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 08-06-2003 1:31 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 244 of 261 (48939)
08-06-2003 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Barryven
08-06-2003 11:13 AM


Barry,
I assume this is the question you want answered:
quote:
And, you may have some other evidence that the design we see in nature does not have some kind of undiscovered, universal presence of direction or design that is part of it’s nature? What is it?
This question has been challenged by everyone on this forum. Holmes, Asgara, Crashfrog, Peter, and numerous others have asked how we would recognize the handiwork of this undiscovered, universal presence and we have never been satisfactorily answered. Our resident IDC theorist here has even said the burden is on us to figure out how to differentiate Intelligent Design from the design of mechanistic processes. Needless to say, we're at a loss to do so.
I am astounded by the diversity and complexity of life on Earth. The replication/variation/selection process has been operating on Earth for billions of years, and its products are extremely varied. It has produced human intelligence, and also many different types of animal instincts that vary only in degree from human intelligence. It has produced many different modes of existence: stationary plants that photosynthesize and depend on insects or herbivores for their replication, animal predators who feed off of plants and other animals and reproduce sexually, parasites who depend fully on their hosts even for replication.
The operation of the replication/variation/selection process over these billions of years has created strange designs and bizarre complexity. Its greatest achievement in terms of variation has been insects, whose different forms are mind-bogglingly numerous. The key to this process is survival, not beauty or goodness or any higher principle. The fossil record is littered with the remnants of species who failed, the detritus of nature's experiments. The vast majority of species are rewarded for their efforts with extinction, and replacement by a species better suited to prevailing conditions.
The following are proven facts concerning life on Earth: Replication, Variation, and Selection. We Darwinists can look at the world as it is and see 'grandeur in this view of Life,' regardless of your opinion that this perspective on Nature is cynical or reductionist.
Higher purpose? Direction? Intelligent Design? You believe they apply to the natural world, but you can't seem to get Nature to confirm your belief. Nature doesn't need any of your beliefs to make it as amazing as it is. It does it all by itself.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Barryven, posted 08-06-2003 11:13 AM Barryven has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 245 of 261 (48943)
08-06-2003 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Mammuthus
08-06-2003 12:12 PM


mammuthus writes:
OK..I'll bite....propose a hypothesis of intelligent design
1. show how it can be falsified
2. provide supporting evidence
3. propose experiments that could be performed to test the hypothesis
I totally agree with this necessary move on the part of ID theorists to make their theory scientifically credible.
I have started a new thread topic in the "Intelligent Design" forum to pursue this very thing... leaving this thread for what it is supposed to be about (intelligence behind design).
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Mammuthus, posted 08-06-2003 12:12 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 246 of 261 (48946)
08-06-2003 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Warren
08-06-2003 12:01 PM


warren writes:
Recent studies in the philosophy of science suggest that philosophically neutral criteria do not exist that can define science narrowly enough to disqualify hypotheses of design without also disqualifying materialistic evolutionary
Although I am unaware of these "studies", this sounds true enough. I think many critics have already admitted there are no scientific reasons to dismiss the HYPOTHESIS of design.
The problem is you have to move on from HYPOTHESIS to an experiment that can provide sounde evidence to support that hypothesis.
Unfortunately ID has yet to produce a serious philosophically sound experiment.
warren writes:
Thus, ID and blind watchmaking hypotheses appear to be methodologically equivalent...
That's the beauty isn't it? They both APPEAR equivalent, but they are not, especially in the methodology of their EXPERIMENTS and RESEARCH METHODS. This is much more critical than methodologies of forming HYPOTHESES.
Current ID methodologies involve producing claims that are untestable, or unfalsifiable. Unsupported? In some sense yes, but I will admit that IC systems provide some support for the HYPOTHESIS of ID, even if that support is incredibly shaky.
I just opened a new topic thread within the Intelligent Design forum, addressing this very thing... moving from suspicion to evidence to support a design hypothesis. I would love to see you contribute to that thread.
In fact, you should enjoy my first post as I answer your long put challenge to deliver a reason to suspect ID.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Warren, posted 08-06-2003 12:01 PM Warren has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 247 of 261 (48950)
08-06-2003 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Barryven
08-05-2003 1:54 PM


barryven writes:
Holmes response that this is a lame analogy that wears him out...well, to say that this is not evidence and say that it is irrelevant to evolution seems to me to smack of the same kind of reasoning that creationists use...
Okay I take total responsibility for not making my argument clear enough... it was written late at night... but it seems like you ahd to avoid the examples I gave (which you requested) in order to make this comment about me.
I was trying to say that drawing evidence or conclusions from your analogy or such analogies are philosophically unsound because all sorts of analogies like this can be made and to pick one over the other are arbitrary.
Let me stick with one of the examples I gave.
Evolution resulted in the development of human creativity. Yet human creativity has resulted in societies. These societies function as individuals separate from the humans which make them up.
A society can be said to have a memory and a temperament and a way of functioning. In fact, societies can start molding the individuals that make them up, without a conscious effort from the individuals within. Furthermore, societies try to replicate themselves by affecting and interacting with other societies, as well as reproducing by moving to new areas.
You decided to stop at the level of the humand mind and say that this indicates perhaps an intelligent force guides evolution.
But that is to ignore the society. The colony. Perhaps it is not a singular intelligent force guiding things then, but a collective force.
Then again maybe the collective is not the end either.
Lynn Margulis has already extended the line of argument you have started and past the end point I have just done in stating "mindless society" as the force guiding evolution.
One could just as simply say that it is an active Universe (objects in motion) which results in things having to continually adapt and those which do it best end up replicating. This does not take intelligence at all. And to pick one set of adapting and replicating things as the model of what must be driving the universe, seems as I said at the beginning... arbitrary. Well humanocentric anyway.
Oh yes, and I should explain why constantly dealing with analogies tires me out. This is because we should be moving from them to evidence. Analogies are simple placeholders or shorthand to understand underlying evidence.
A scientific theory cannot live by analogies alone... and my brain, in contemplating ID, is beginning to starve for real sustenance.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Barryven, posted 08-05-2003 1:54 PM Barryven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Barryven, posted 08-07-2003 11:31 AM Silent H has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 248 of 261 (48953)
08-06-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Warren
08-06-2003 12:01 PM


Warren,
Recent studies in the philosophy of science suggest that philosophically neutral criteria do not exist that can define science narrowly enough to disqualify hypotheses of design without also disqualifying materialistic evolutionary hypotheses on identical grounds.
Nonsense. ID doesn't even meet the basic standards of science, there's absolutely no need whatsoever to go into details of what is & isn't science by looking at technicalities.
Any given hypothesis for ID is untestable & unfalsifiable. If it ain't those two, it ain't science. Given that you would have shown how ID meets the two criteria above if you could of by now, ID can safely be relegated back to the "unsupported belief" shelf, not that it was ever off it, of course. No one is obligated to accept something whose "truth" can only exist on this level.
Essentially you are pleading that hypotheses that cannot/do not have legitimate supporting evidence, & can never be knowably shown to be untrue, should be allowed as science. In that case my hypothesis that the universe was blown out of the arse of the Galactic Goat should be considered science, non?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Warren, posted 08-06-2003 12:01 PM Warren has not replied

  
Barryven
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 261 (49111)
08-07-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Silent H
08-06-2003 2:09 PM


evidence
Human, intelligence driven, creative activity that responds to the environment in a way that mimics evolution...meaning the ongoing creation, re-combination and re-creation of desirable (adaptable) relationships between ideas, organic and non-organic matter and energy in ways that are desirable(adaptable)is a produc, I REPEAT "PRODUCT" - of evolution.
The mechanics of the human brain, the nervous system and the five senses that enable that to happen are products of evolution. The emergence of human intelligence is directly related to - caused - by evolution...it is much more than an analogy...it is an accepted fact in the scientific community that evolution produced the intelligence that drives human creativity, is it not?
Added in the edit: "Here's the premise: If some, as yet unidentified, form of ID were present in evolution and if that replicated itself as human intelligence that mimics evolution, then we must be able to experiment - predict - something that supports that if that hypothesis were to be have any scientific relevence or value.
Hypothesis: "If replication is what's going on here and if ID in evolution replicated itself in human intelligence then human intelligence should be also be driven by replication and should try to replicate intelligence in it's creative activity." That would have to be verifiable by observing and evaluating human ideas and the artifacts those ideas give birth to.
In other words, it should be predictable that human intelligent driven creative activity should, like evolution, also try to replicate intelligence in what it creates - intelligence that has the capacity to respond to the environment in desirable (abaptable) ways.
And, of course, we know - we can verify -that humans are attempting to do that.
This is not proof of ID, IT'S ONLY A PIECE OF EVIDENCE. (I'm tempted to repeat this statement because, my experience on this forum is such that I think that some one will likely accuse me of presenting this as proof.)
I think that those who practice, what seems to me to be, "The Religion of Science," (not every scientist) and who's denominational creed is that "intelligent design cannot be part of evolution" will never be able to entertain the idea that evidence can be found. Any evidence that points to ID cannot be evidence since it is already known that ID can't be present..so anything that looks like evidence can't be that....must only be lame, irrelavant and unrelated analogies.
Barry
[This message has been edited by Barryven, 08-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Silent H, posted 08-06-2003 2:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Silent H, posted 08-07-2003 1:30 PM Barryven has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 250 of 261 (49127)
08-07-2003 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Barryven
08-07-2003 11:31 AM


barryven writes:
I think that those who practice... "The Religion of Science,"... will never be able to entertain the idea that evidence can be found. Any evidence that points to ID cannot be evidence since it is already known that ID can't be present..so anything that looks like evidence can't be that....must only be lame, irrelavant and unrelated analogies.
Don't put words in my mouth Barry. If you have read my posts you'll know I'm much more tolerant and flexible on ID than most.
While I think currently there are no good arguments or evidence for ID, I do not think it is impossible to come up with scenarios that would be evidence for ID. I'm simply not for watering down science in order to make a particular theory more credible.
Most of ID offends me because its leaders have decided to undermine science itself in order to have their way now Now NOW!!!! It seems if they really had some "faith" in their conclusions they wouldn't have to lobby congress and or campaign for an overthrow of coherent scientific methodology and philosophy. I mean any movement that calls for the overthrow of Occam's razor and the argument from ignorance should raise eyebrows in anyone that considers themselves a scientist.
Anyhow, I have understood your argument. I get it that evolution has resulted in the human mind. But that is among other things.
This is my point which you have not addressed.
First, evolution is similar to other processes seen in an active universe where things must constantly adapt to changing situations in order to "survive". Why do we not address these as well?
Second, out of evolution has come societies and social colonies. These are larger and perhaps more important than the individual human mind. That is depending on your point of view.
You have chosen to look at the human mind as a product of evolution. That is the equivalent (using your own analogies) of focusing solely on the gas oven as a product of the human mind. There is much more than the human mind (or singular human creativity) which has come out of the PROCESS of evolution.
I realize you are saying that it is not proof of ID. Perhaps not even evidence for ID? It certainly isn't evidence if you can't explain how to move from your observation to a point of knowledge.
But if it is not proof, nor is it really evidence, what is it other than an exercise in thumb-twiddling, or mental masturbation? It may be fun for a while but it doesn't produce anything useful. Like trying to answer the question if there is an end to the Universe (where there may always be something beyond the end, if there is an end to be seen).
So evolution has produced the human mind. The human mind (aka creativity or ideas) replicates itself similar to the way evolution involves replication.
Maybe this means something? Maybe it does not. So where in SCIENCE do we go from here?
All you have added is "IF there is an ID and it has replicated itself in human intelligence we must be able to find some evidence." I don't see how this is necessary at all. Maybe we could. But maybe not. The question would be what are we seeing that would indicate this.
But why couldn't it just as easily be the force of collective will of Nature... i.e. Margulis' Gaia... that creates a biosphere, to continue replicating itself, with all sorts of offshoots (including ideas)? This doesn't even require intentional "design".
Does this make more sense? Yes your "what if" may be there, but so are countless other "what ifs".
This is not to be sarcastic, but in all honesty it only seems like a religion or a faith can take what you have advanced further than the interesting similarity or "analogy" that it is.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Barryven, posted 08-07-2003 11:31 AM Barryven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Barryven, posted 08-07-2003 4:02 PM Silent H has replied

  
Barryven
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 261 (49183)
08-07-2003 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Silent H
08-07-2003 1:30 PM


Holmes: "But why couldn't it just as easily be the force of collective will of Nature... i.e. Margulis' Gaia... that creates a biosphere, to continue replicating itself, with all sorts of offshoots (including ideas)? This doesn't even require intentional "design".
Does Margulis' Gaia help support your point of view?? Is this something you agree with or disagree with? Is it a position that provides an alternative to ID?? I haven't read it so I can't comment on it, thus I'm not clear about your purpose in citing it...but I'll read it soon.
Holmes: First, evolution is similar to other processes seen in an active universe where things must constantly adapt to changing situations in order to "survive". Why do we not address these as well?
Give me some examples of the processes you're referring to so that I can comment on them in this context.
Also, even though I have focused on human intelligence as a product of evolution I do recognize it as only a small part of what evolution has produced...but, it is a very recent product and has some qualities about it that seem unprecedented in the evolution of life (Although expanded consciousness is apparent in the history of evolution) and it it has a great potential to impact evolution...and to impact the survival potential of the human species. I used the stove as an example but that doesn't mean I fail to recognize that it is only a small part of what human creativity has produced in the evolution of its ideas and strategies on the use of fire.
Barry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Silent H, posted 08-07-2003 1:30 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2003 12:39 AM Barryven has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 252 of 261 (49304)
08-08-2003 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Barryven
08-07-2003 4:02 PM


barryven writes:
Does Margulis' Gaia help support your point of view?? Is this something you agree with or disagree with? Is it a position that provides an alternative to ID?? I haven't read it so I can't comment on it, thus I'm not clear about your purpose in citing it...but I'll read it soon.
She doesn't support my "point of view", although she presents examples which make human minds seem rather insignificant as products of evolution (or as the most important one we must consider).
Interestingly enough ID theorists have kept her as much in the closet as they possibly can. Behe oddly dismissed her theories in his book by saying evos aren't embracing it fully. Uhhhh, doesn't the same go for ID???
It could be said she offers an alternative to ID. Certainly her theories suggest that if there is a "design" to be seen, it is more credibly the result of organisms organizing themselves to there best mutual advantage.
I find her work dealing with prokaryotes, and her hypothesis on how prokaryotes organized themselves into eukaryotes extremely plausible. Her further claims regarding the importance of symbiotic relationships are interesting, but perhaps overstretched.
But none of this is really important here. The point I was making is that there are examples of other products of the evolutionary process, which replicate themselves and adapt to the environment.
barryven writes:
Give me some examples of the processes you're referring to so that I can comment on them in this context.
How about stellar "evolution", or how about heat exchange/control mechanisms within the geosphere (ie weather, currents, plate tectonics)?
barryven writes:
Also, even though I have focused on human intelligence as a product of evolution I do recognize it as only a small part of what evolution has produced...but, it is a very recent product and has some qualities about it that seem unprecedented in the evolution of life...
There are many unprecedented qualities that have arisen during the evolution of life. I won't argue that the brain, especially the level of thought available to humans, is some insignificant development. It's big.
But why are you latching on to its development like history is done? Maybe evolution has some more important things to develop, especially if humans choose to push outside the boundaries of our planet or solar system.
That we are the "end" or "purpose" of evolution, or that we are a model of what must have begun the evolutionary process (I guess because we can comprehend it?) just seems an arbitrary choice.
By the way, I wasn't knocking how you used the gas stove analogy. I was simply saying that to focus on ideas, or the human brain is the same thing as focusing only on the creation of the gas stove. I was assuming that you thought the human mind generated more than a gas stove. That was part of the point.
Anyway, I am willing to drop all of the arguments above for sake of arguing about the only thing that matters.
WHAT are we to do with your observation? WHERE do we go as scientists to possibly (dis)prove what you have said? And if there is no way to (dis)prove it, WHY are we discussing it?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Barryven, posted 08-07-2003 4:02 PM Barryven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Wounded King, posted 08-08-2003 6:28 AM Silent H has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 253 of 261 (49337)
08-08-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Silent H
08-08-2003 12:39 AM


Saying that prokaryotes 'organised' themselves into eukaryotes smacks of teleology or anthropomorphism, I can't tell which.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2003 12:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2003 12:12 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 254 of 261 (49378)
08-08-2003 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Wounded King
08-08-2003 6:28 AM


wounded king writes:
Saying that prokaryotes 'organised' themselves into eukaryotes smacks of teleology or anthropomorphism, I can't tell which.
I used "organized" as a shorthand for Margulis's more complex theory. While at times, Margulis's side rants (or sermonizing) sound suspiciously like teleology (through the life will of Gaia) or anthropomorphism, the meat of her theory is not.
They naturally organize under environmental conditions. For example non-oxygen breathing organisms would naturally die out when exposed to the atmosphere, but survive under or within layers of oxygen breathing organisms.
It should be noted this part of her theory is not really controversial anymore. Genetic profiling is proving her right as parts of cells orginally thought to be just that (parts of cells) actually have their own DNA. It is becoming apparent that eukaryotes are likely the integration of multiple prokaryotic organisms which eventually lost their separate "identity."
Again, this is why I find ID theorist's ignoring her theories very troubling. It offers other NATURAL mechanisms for the evolution of properties we see.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Wounded King, posted 08-08-2003 6:28 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by MrHambre, posted 08-08-2003 12:40 PM Silent H has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 255 of 261 (49381)
08-08-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Silent H
08-08-2003 12:12 PM


Have we witnessed a speciation event in the IDC camp or has a subgroup always existed that appear to resemble theistic evolutionists? At least Barry and Warren here seem to admit that evolution occurs, they just argue the notion that it's a purposeless process.
This is possibly a more insidious form of IDC than the strain that lacks the evolutionary camouflage. When it's convenient to formulate an argument from ignorance, they can claim that something is inaccessible to Darwinian evolution. If evidence is presented to support the Darwinian model, it's easy to attribute teleology to any phenomenon without fear of contradiction.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2003 12:12 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by NosyNed, posted 08-09-2003 8:37 PM MrHambre 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