Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
373 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, WookieeB (7 members, 366 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,088 Year: 4,200/6,534 Month: 414/900 Week: 120/150 Day: 13/38 Hour: 5/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living With Darwin - Evolution, Design and the Future of Faith
subbie
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 1 of 7 (388344)
03-05-2007 5:53 PM


Just got Philip Kitcher's new book. I'm only a few pages into it, but it looks like it's going to be very interesting.

He first lays the groundwork by explaining that there's no easy first round knock-out of ID. He dismisses many of the most common objections raised against it, that there are no peer-reviewed articles, that there's no experimentation and that it isn't testable. Anyone familiar with his argument that there is no clear demarcation between science and non-science as advanced in Abusing Science will understand his reasons. Anyone not familiar with this argument needs to read that book.

He describes the core of ID as consisting of two major claims: the negative one, "that some aspects of life cannot be understood in terms of natural selection," and the positive one, "that these aspects of life must be understood as effects of an alternative causal agency." While finding "grounds for suspicion" that IDers are being less than forthcoming in advertising ID as independent of religious doctrine, he is willing to meet them on that battleground and accept the claim as true for purposes of his analysis.

Dr. Kitcher's main thesis is that ID loses not because it's not science or because it is religion. It loses because it's "dead science." It's science that has already been conducted and found to be wanting on scientific grounds. The questions that IDers pose as problems for evolution are ones that have been successfully addressed in the past.

More to come as I get farther into it.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 03-06-2007 6:41 PM subbie has taken no action
 Message 4 by ogon, posted 05-19-2007 7:53 AM subbie has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4262 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 7 (388626)
03-06-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-05-2007 5:53 PM


cave insects and special creation?
Here is the biggest problem I have with Kitcher’s presentation.

He insists on scripting the differences and similarities of cave insects in US and Europe as being something that creationists would not be able to explain by separate creation and yet the narrative of his “evolutionary” side does not seem to permit there to be ANY truth to Croizat’s claim that Mayr has no concept of “recombination” of characters or one must read Kitcher’s use of popular evolutionary thought ONLY interms of standard neo-Darwinism but he clearly is aware otherwise when he writes about “anti-selectionism”.

http://www.sciencebuff.org/mayr_mentions_croizat.php
quote:
Buffalo Museum of Science - Mayr Mentions Croizat
Why does Dr. Ernst Mayr to war against Croizat firing only blanks? ... entirely wanting an idea of recombination of characters, of type of organization, ...
www.sciencebuff.org/mayr_mentions_croizat.php - 41k

This notion of change seems to have a paternity back to Rosa and given the speculative past reconstruction of


Click for full size image

quote:
"The Book of Life:An Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth" and "Panbiogeography:Tracking the History of Life"

where the white line connected Europe and America it seems possible an entomologist might investigate that similarities of the cave insects due to secondary local mobilism of a prior common immoblism the “line” radiates. These terms are also a part of Panbiogeography but because the genetic nature of Croizat’s method is not spelled out it seems that IF recombination gives rise to insect and cave insect form across this geology then a creationist may assert “special creation” where Kitcher insisted this was not possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-05-2007 5:53 PM subbie has taken no action

  
bgmark2
Member (Idle past 5388 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 05-04-2007


Message 3 of 7 (401323)
05-19-2007 7:37 AM


Looks very complicated...but there are other theories too...could find out much faster if the US government would let me have access to those aliens they have in area 51...just a few hours alone with them and am sure will have the answers


What about coconuts?

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 05-19-2007 8:28 AM bgmark2 has taken no action
 Message 7 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-20-2007 12:02 PM bgmark2 has taken no action

  
ogon
Member (Idle past 5359 days)
Posts: 70
Joined: 05-13-2007


Message 4 of 7 (401328)
05-19-2007 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-05-2007 5:53 PM


I'm over half way through this book at the moment. I understand some of it! As a beginner I quite like the bit about eyeballs and how some bacteria propel themselves. I can understand why some people would have a problem with the evolution of eyeballs though, don't you subbie? The bacteria bit is interesting but a little bit beyond my understanding so far.
ogon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-05-2007 5:53 PM subbie has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 05-19-2007 3:22 PM ogon has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4262 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 7 (401338)
05-19-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bgmark2
05-19-2007 7:37 AM


What is complicated?
What's complicated??

...that Gish would only pass the torch to someone who would permit his or her daughter to date a monkey with relations to nannas? It is simple as I see it. The notion of "relation" fails to be worked as far as it can be thought, on either side, of the peel.

If evos contiune to slip up by not having control of the work coming out of their own camp, (Neither Provine nor DS Wilson were familiar with Kitcher's book), it will only be Dawkin's lament that biologists have to endure socially what physicists do not that can be heard.

The reason for that is that Kant's differences of mathema and dogmata apply biologically (to a given object not a given material) while they need not to any particular work with a GIVEN amount of materials. Why? the materials control the actual relations. Biologists working with relations have to deal with multiple "material givens" (at different times in history). The attempt to solve this difficulty with the use of language (theoretical biology of 60s, the genetic code, computers) only makes the notion of relation that may not apply to biology more intricate. We still have the same bannana tree, no matter what is up it.

Edited by Brad McFall, : superfelous subsistence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bgmark2, posted 05-19-2007 7:37 AM bgmark2 has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33889
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 6 of 7 (401387)
05-19-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ogon
05-19-2007 7:53 AM


Eyes are really one of the easier ones to understand.
I can understand why some people would have a problem with the evolution of eyeballs though, don't you subbie?

Actually eyes are pretty easy to understand since we can see all the various steps and types in use today, from the most primitive, limited functionality to the most advanced such as those on squid and octopus.

There are even critters that have multiple types of eyes and use all of them, the box-jellyfish being a great example.

Remember that even basic light sensitivity offered an advantage long before there we ANY animals. The earlies photosensitive plants would have had it. We can see it even today in plants. When the early whatever, the earliest animal type critter came along, light sensitivity too would have been useful. And those critters with better sensitivity would be more likely to eat an less likely to get eaten.

For me the most convincing part is that when we look at eyes, what we find really is "just good enough to get by", we can see all the intermediate steps, see examples of many different solutions to the issue of sight, and understand why particular features would have given the possessor a slight advantage and so likely to have been seleted for.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ogon, posted 05-19-2007 7:53 AM ogon has taken no action

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 7 of 7 (401503)
05-20-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bgmark2
05-19-2007 7:37 AM


Aliens amongst us.
.could find out much faster if the US government would let me have access to those aliens they have in area 51...just a few hours alone with them and am sure will have the answers

Haven't you realized that one of those area 51 aliens has escaped and is posting in this thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bgmark2, posted 05-19-2007 7:37 AM bgmark2 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022