It seems that the producers are really only in any trouble because they insist on drawing further attention to the relation of Darwinism and WWII. I have some papers ( I showed some on EvC before) that were ciruclated to produce a department in New York to carry out what happened (sterlization)in Calif. and Virigina. Gould knew well enough that this keeps coming up (bad eugenics). The back lash however has been an extripation of biological determinism rather than this kind of rehashing of what is no longer desired nor pursued as far as I know.
What does seem to have been significant is that the directors were able to get Dawkins to admit that ID may be possible to 1%. This is no more than I attempted to diagram here.
Dobson had suggested that perhaps Dakwins did not know where Stein was coming from but even this does not seem to be an out of context 'quote'.
It all depends on if Stein was being truthful. Richard could say so.
Stein said he first asked Dr. Dawkins if ID "exists"
(I don't recall the exact wording,("is possible")maybe)at 0% and that Richard Dawkins said, without leading, something like "No, 1%".
Stein then went for the context,... asking if not, what about 5% and Richard agreed (It is very hard for me to determine "context" between = "no" comma and a percentage=. There certainly is in Kant's notion of justice, the possibility of a negative influence mathematically which is not the logicians notion but gives the same sense of apodictic certainty Russell claims he sought in the history of logic but Wittgenstein seemed to make an appearence as.
I can not speak for Stein here, but if the context changes between this â€œnoâ€ and 1%, then in the Richardâ€™s own short sound bite the error seems all on Richard, unless he was lead wrongly into the question. I donâ€™t see how Richard D. could not expect such a question from Stein?
I guess the â€œzeroâ€ threw him off but then again, this may only be because recent Islamic politics. I donâ€™t know.)
Stein then said well if 5% why not 51% and at this number Richard backed off.
I donâ€™t see why he just didnâ€™t say 0%, yes... for any percent probability is enough to get the discussion going if one is only coming from a further external position than oneâ€™s â€œopponentâ€.
Thanks for that other info on "god or not" rather than "ID or not".
There is obviously a little bit of numbering going on. The radio had 1 and 5%, a subtraction I guess.
Off topic on Dawkins - I knew he had not said never ever ever no God but still he could have said no ID-100%! I am tempted to say this sometimes, while I think, while not giving anything but 100% to God.
The thought is this: A New Ecological Economics
Can work be done in evolution to evolve creatures able to sort low entropy better and thus expand the life span of Homo industrialus? Cannot artificial selection instruct natural selection in the wild counter to Darwinâ€™s vision (due to his limited knowledge of heritability) such that genetic information gains material constructs designed by converting kinetic energy into potential energy through a fundamental manifestation of the second law not available to non-living systems? Does not the phenomenological hierarchical thermodynamic thermostat provide the construct on which to build a periodic crystal potential energy niche via water recycling in the ecological world of Darwinâ€™s â€œvariabilityâ€? Can not the actualization of this procedure supply indications contrary to Malthus that the â€œfoodâ€ supply may not be arithmetically limited but may be subject to progressive neo-Darwinian alterations in gene frequencies as creatures mutate and migrate into little populated regions of these thermostats?
Should not the tone of eco-justice be modified, provided a hierarchy of prima facie biotic rights are granted to the objects of these increases in biomass production, and the actions to simply â€œgreenâ€ the economy be translated into shapes of low entropy sorters of food sources able to convert the motion of water into better effiency of sunlight genetically?
Why do we simply not propose that mankind can even direct this artifical selection in microevolution to FUTURE uses for life off of Earth? Our food thus may come from creatures not now able to procreate on mountain tops, desert areas, or the ends of the globe but enabled by human design of natural selection Darwin confused with separate creation.
Darwin wrote, â€œAuthors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the pas and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the firs bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become enobled.â€(p116)
Because Darwin had imagined that intricate adaptations might arise via these secondary causes and on considering that there was an reproductive continuum linking all creatures rather than some special creation for each Darwin misplaced in the reciprocity of cause and effect the purely lineal relation of man to God. He mistook the opinion of his day for the lack of information on how the â€œsecondary causes â€œ of birth and death, in addition to everything he imagined, circulate the putting together and taking apart of genomes. This is why symbiogensis and creationism often sound sometimes to have a similar complaint about neo-Darwinism despite the causal differences. This was his error when he tried to imagine the continuum in space and time what he had developed in soma only. Infinity of the latter requires some kind of ordertypes in the former where he denoted separate creation but without the necessary numerology of continuous motion (back to the Silurian)in the discrete space of the genes of birth and death of the component species lineages the Boltzmann corrected materiality of entropy under this energy of connections can develop macrothermodynamically what Darwin took as an impression. He further made mistakes by using what is only but a Hamiltonian bifurcation adequetly circumscribed by the difference of homozygote and heterozygotes while he sought to apply Malthus to the place of the change generally.
Stephan Jay Gould is of the opinion that these secondary causes of birth and death are to be generalized to any â€œevolutionary individualâ€ thus expanding a horizon of evolutionary logic but he expects this without the direct imposition of force or the impression that Darwin ostensibly waived off from God. Gould attempts to relate his disinclination towards direct impression by his reading of Lamarck, dissection of the history of biology into formal and functional categories, and lack of enthusiasim for Kaufmannâ€™s â€œorder for freeâ€ while giving a rather parochial reading to the mathematical meaning and direction possible in Darcy Thompsonâ€™s use of â€œco-ordinate transformationsâ€
This confused synthesis of analysis of biology results from failure to recognize that there is a limit in the form but not in the matter under consideration. Thus rather than expecting to see a new Keplerian notion in biology Gould rightly stresses the dynamical nature of the birth and deaths. There is, given the thermostat, however a different reading in the history of biology than Gould and Provinesâ€™, where kinematical structures ply the formal/functional divide and algebra kings the red square of any insect such, that physical forces give the intuition under which the forms changes (form-making) and Gouldâ€™s organon is seen for what it is nothing other than a gap in the place of the data made by writing style (formality/grammar) rather than the rules that determines the place of the atoms themselves. By continuing to frame extensions of the evolutionary synthesis as if against notions of value etc Gould has continued a tradition where/while the particulate nature of substances is not put in at the beginning but only in the statistical division represented well by the used ideas of â€œphenotypeâ€ and â€œgenotypeâ€. The volume boxing however does better if the horizon is recognized supramolecularly with changes made to Boltzmann relation of probability and entropy instead.
This enables a new division of the relation of the source and flow of changes in low to high entropy within the place niche construction which once related to changes in potential and kinetic energy under reproduction of the evolutionary synthesis provides a the natural law on which juridicial decisions of eco-justice can be made de jure. So many of these pathways are obscured by the thermal constants involved in the reaction (H+ + OH- = H2O)
For me the whole thing is that there is a possible acutal infinity in the matter(biological changes can not be understood to alter quark positions fundamentally) but a limit in the form while all we can know by current methods is a seeming infinite boundary of shapes formally and finite matter naturally. Thus Irreducible Complexity is just a mask for this relation which I thought otherwise above. I just donâ€™t get Dakwinsâ€™ point against Gould if he doesnâ€™t want to commit against the â€œscienceâ€ of ID even if he still wants not to write God off absolutely.
Ben Stein was just (4 mins ago) interviewed on FLN(Family Life (Radio) Network) in UpState NY and either he is reading EvC or what he is doing promotionally is as bad as the worst of creation/evolution sites (for which EvC IS the antiDop/te).
Ben just said that Darwinism did not explain gravity!!
Duh! I can not talk with such a person at all. He implied that it should do so or try to do so. He throws the cultural net further than YECs do. AntiLIE was not this bad.
I dont know. THAT was how he started out. It was hard for me to take him seriously at all after that and I am probably one of the most open listeners there are. It is possible that there was some kind of audio edit I did not notice but it did not appear that way.
George Williams made the difference of gravity and adaptation under selection clear in 1966 when he wrote
quote:For an example that I assume will not be controversial, consider a flying fish that has just left the water to undertake an aerial flight. It is clear that there is a physiological necessity for it to return to the water very soon; it cannot long survive in air. It is, moreover, a matter of common observation that an aerial glide normally terminates with a return to the sea. Is this the result of a mechanism for getting he fish back into water? Certainly not; we need not invoke the principle of adaptation here. The purely physical principle of gravitaton adequately explains why the fish, having gone up, eventually comes down....problem is not how it manages to come down, but why it takes so long to do so...Here we would be dealing with adaptation.Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought Princeton Univ Press page 10
If Mr. Stein wants to make some kind of realistic critique then he should not have strayed out this far, from the start in 66, where Williams wrote, at first,
quote:Many of the contributions to evolutionary thought in the past century can be put in one of two opposed groups. One group emphasizes natural selection as the primary or exclusive creative force. The other minimizes the role of selection in relation to other proposed factors.
It would take some effort to give ID an airing from this start but THAT at least offers something useful (here the scholarship requires one to finish the ongoing discussion of the "alternatives" to Darwinism as Kellog had them etc...).
Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling and other touches.
The hypothetical 1% existant aliens having evolved or not was already contained in Kant's thought (in "The Critique of Judgment")in the difference of reflective and determinant judgment.
The question really is, is why the world is arguing and debating this to peices rather than trying to put the parts together.
If Richard can cognize the place of possible transition between teleology and theology then perhaps society should have insitutions which can turn the reflection into determinations of natural products.
There is no question that I was "expelled" from Cornell for trying to combine them without heeding the current philosophical "realism" from Harvard and Berekely.