Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

The club annoyed or forced Provine (because he differed a bit with the former President on how to handle ID in public)to consider debating Johnson again. I dont know how that went. I do not know any of these members. It might be that instead the course was proposed rather than another national debate between Will and Phil.Since Will is so set that, if there was purpose in nature it was up to Dobshansky to have indicated where, and that Chardin could not produce what even Dobshanksy did, and that Behe's "science" is at best boring (there is an issue where Will is most likely wrong however when he quotes Gould to Johnson that we all know that Darwin knew what he as doing, murdering...), my guess is that the instructer wants to hear EXTERNAL views on the claim of purpose in NATURAL SELECTION caused change. I bet he holds there is none. But as scientists he is probably open to proof. The only way I can see to show this is if artifical microselection could anhiliate catastrophic extra-earth mass extinctions through mutual and reciprocal fractal geometry mediated by a timely alegrab of symmetry revolutions. Gould does not consider this possiblity and Provine is too far less morphologically minded to be at all interested that Gould might have been mistaken in the difference of Palyen vs continental natural theology.So, granted that there seem to be a full load of EVC type materials in the course, it will likely be maintained that there is no purpose in NATURE. The point however as i see it is that in artifical selections of natural selection there can be purpose in the ecologically caused activites of man. Lazzie-faire is dead but the molecularization of hierarcy theory in biology is not.So, since the Courts insist that there must be a SECULAR purpose to creationist work (ID also) before it can be taught in public schools, Cornell, as PRIVATE, will probably be showing that there is no NATURAL PURPOSE (whole teleology argument of Mayr) so there can be no need for other ID classes as the object of a secular purpose would never be found.I think this is mistaken, but that is probably how it will go.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-25-2006 07:48 AM

The class will likely be one of *contraposition.* IF design THEN purpose--> no purpose therefore no design.But this is about a reality not a theoretical possilibility.I tried to say there is no THEORETICAL PROBLEM with the sentence,

quote:

---

The only way I can see to show this is if artificial microselection could annihilate catastrophic extra-earth mass extinctions through mutual and reciprocal fractal geometry mediated by a timely algebra of symmetry revolutions.

---

There is an issue about the scholarship of natural theology. Do you think that scientists are the ones to speak authoritatively about that?It has little pratical success in the world but it IS a broader perspective than the defensive one that secular teaching can only be about Natural Selection in bionomics (to use lead Gould took from the time of DSJORDAN AND WJBRYAN (anti-German U-boats etc)) AFTER artifical intelligent selection of Biometry Vs Mendelism established so artifactually natural selection in nature by the 80s.

quote:

---

1. provide no markers for life in the natural world.

---

This is the problem. The way that Gould divides gradualism INCLUDING creationism vs evolutionism AS PART of his notion of gradualism makes it actually NOT an issue within the tissue of Gould's very wide naming process. One does not have to agree with Gould that Adam Smith's worked wedged out Paley's thought in Agassiz's about fish geology and so one might indeed find that Gould thought "time" where "motion" actually was. Thus the "markers" it would NOT provide life would be about "time" abstracted and not the motion that is happening IN THAT time but as we no longer have the clear categories that Kant had between time and space, the concepts get in the way of the intuition and your transition to #2 from the uniformity in ONE is error filled as well with the same collective problem. Division here does not resolve the plausible problematic IN comparision.

Notice the actual "negativity" of Cornell scientists. That is why the problem remains as intractable today with religious arguments and information added, as to when the same "hostility" came through to me in the 80s, while I was asking for purely scientific things to be considered, {How do you count organisms?, Do biological trasmutations exist as they are believed to in Paris, Can microwaves alter the enzymes of electric fish?, Are you sure what you are writing is coming from the northerhemisphere given the perspective of Croizat?}.My feeling is is that Will is trying to marginalize IDEA just as he tried and did with me. He still has not responded to the SCIENCE of Gladyshev(in Moscow) but back in the 80s COMMUNISM was the external vantage whereas today it is religion, for sure.For me personally I am stuck with the "..." on STOVE(pviii)

quote:

---

"Where does the truth lie? Are the main doctrines of Darwinian teaching as impregnable and well established as proponents claim? One good place to start for an answer is with this book, Darwinian Fairytales It was the last work of the Australian philosopher David Stove. By the time of his death in 1994, Stove had earned a distinguished place for himself in the pantheon of intellectual demolition experts. His targets, one admirer wrote are many: "the Enlightenment, feminism, Freud, the idea of progress, leftish views of all kinds, Marx,...metaphyiscs"

---

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2006 12:21 PM

By "end product" do you mean AFTER a given "core Dawinism" as Gould intended in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"??

Will's whole problem with ID is that it is "boring," that it gives the same answer to every inquiry (maybe that is just his "atheism" comeing out)about proteins. When Will asked Behe, in person, if that bothered him Behe was heard to have responded, "nO!". Now, I see no reason to not agree with Provine if indeed unlike a bolt every protein inspected spectrally turns out to only return the name of "irreducibly complex" but if indeed like a bolt the symmetry itself of the organized strucutre suggests hierarchical naming systems desigend for instance around a central electron action and a periferal photon motion, then the entire scholarship of Gould walks away to another day, but the student is left with a determined linguist deep structuring in thought able to be told again the next day. In other words, if proteins can be named by design principles irrespective of evolutionary speculation such that the class of the individual supramolecular structures retain through communication information otherwise dissiapted by the transmission medium not only will the secondary qualities retain positive value but the "boring" science will be the only thing that does not survive to the next generation of students. As Iano said this is about ID@CU so I do not want to get beyond what WIll might have said that was involved with this summer class, as I have ideas about REVERSE fundamental series that theoretically enable me to respond as I did.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2006 01:14 PM

Yes, I found in the 80s biochemistry to be incessantly "boring." I did not hear Will say that chemical biology got any less "boring" this past Fall but it was clear that he at least was open to functionalist investigations of proteins while he felt that as long as ID and Behe were not developing specific informations about the parts they consider IC then current science which *might* look into that was less boring.I must say that the integration of biophysics and organismic biology still has not reached the place where some real progress can occurr. I think this is due to a false scholarship of "formalist" vs "functionalist" differences, especially as Gould had it. It seems to me that there is purpose in naming proteins and if an IDer does so and the names form some kind of hierarchy that *might* (after the creator's fact) have statisitcal significance for evolutionists who require a kind of design ("ordering") anyway then IF ID did the work it would not be objected by Will or most others here on EVC. It has not done this. That is all.It seems to me philosophically that ID is trying to pry open a closed functionalist can of negativity (to any change, whether from religion or among scientists themselves)where a formalism hidden by IC remains. The photons I referred to whould indicate the "internal constraint" in the language of Gould and electrons could kinetically reveal the formality that ID may eventually find.But again that is my opinion. Without a explanation of probability in ID I must sustain myself with only that thought, so far.