Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on...

Graci!Hey, Joralex, put up or shut up. The new thread is waiting.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

You haven't supported it (your argument) at all. How can I possibly acknowledge it? It must be that I need to spell it out in simpler terms.ME : Just as I thought, you are clueless as to the effort that would be involved.YOU : A quick definition of "metaphysics", & a description of how, in principle, evolution is more guilty of it than all other sciences. There you go yet again! There IS NO "quick definition" of metaphysics that I can give you that would be worth anything for discussion purposes. Try this : why don't you give me a "quick" rundown of the history of Communism - make it "quick", okay?You just can't do it, Joralex, & that's the problem. Put up or shut up. You're correct - I cannot "quickly" educate someone on a complex topic when that person doesn't even have a basic level of knowledge on that topic. To wit : it is possible to teach calculus to a person versed in algebra, but not to a person that doesn't yet know what a number is.YOU called ME out! Per-lease! Are we reading the same thread? I asked you to support your contention that evolutionary theory has metaphysics that underpins it. That would be me calling you out, mate, by anyones reckoning. Good grief. "Good grief" to you, too.

​

Read my lips : ALL scientific/human theories/endeavors have a metaphysic in their foundation - this is inescapable. Is this clear enough for you?

​

Listen, mate, you aren't going to accept it from me since my position (fundamentalist Christian YEC) is an anathema to your spirit so I'll quote one of your own. Biologist David Bohm, in the book 'Towards a Theoretical Biology', wrote:

​

"It seems clear that everybody has got some metaphysics, even if he thinks he hasn't got any. Indeed, the practical 'hard-headed' individual who 'only goes by what he sees' generally has a very dangerous kind of metaphysics, i.e., the kind of which he is unaware... Such metaphysics is dangerous because, in it, assumptions and inferences are being mistaken for directly observed facts, with the result that they are effectively rivited in an almost unchangeable way into the structure of thought. What is called for is therefore that each one of us be aware of his metaphysical assumptions, to the extent that this is possible.

​

One of the best ways of a person becoming aware of his own tacit metaphysical assumptions is to be confronted by several other kinds. His first reaction is often violent disturbance, as views that are very clear are questioned or even thrown to the ground. Nevertheless, if he will 'stay with it', rather than escape into anger and unjustified rejectionof contrary ideas, he will discover that this disturbance is very beneficial. For now he becomes aware of the assumptive character of a great many previously unquestioned features of his own thinking."

​

I couldn't have said it better myself.

​

Two additions, with Bohm's permission :

​

(1) It is impossible for any human being to isolate the metaphysic that he carries from his daily life including work and personal matters. Hence, there is and must be a metaphysical foundation in all human activity including thought.

​

(2) As I stated earlier, most Naturalists fall into the category of being totally oblivious of their metaphysical foundation. A lot of this has to do with ignorance (they haven't learned of this) and is therefore correctable. Many don't care to remedy this deficiency and these constitute the 'dangerous intellectuals' that Bohm spoke of. In particular, many evolutionists believe that they are promoting science when in fact they are actually promoting the materialistic metaphysic of Naturalism (and, amazingly, they aren't even aware of what they're doing!!).

​

I'll say no more except to apologize to the many of you that I will not answer to personally. Two reasons : (1) I don't believe it will get me anywhere and (2) I am having to respond to far too many of you. These are difficult matters and a quick response just isn't appropriate.

​

If any of you wants to explore these matters in more detail, please feel free to email me and I'll try and find the time.
.
.
. This much the ID'ers have done. They have inductively derived their hypotheses, they are simply unable to test & falsify them, the all important "second step". And you claim to understand this stuff?Hence ID has the same explanatory power as "the fairies did it". KLLU-less!Your argument thus far, Joralex, is that you are more educated than I, therefore, I am wrong. Appeals to authority don't come more arrogantly egotistical than that. That is unadulterated nonsense, and you know it. First, I have no idea what your education is so it would be illogical of me to say that I am "more educated". Second, I couldn't care any less about a person's educational background - I listen to the person's arguments, period! There is only one good reason for presenting background - so that everyone may know at what 'level' the conversation may be carried at.

​

You simply wish to perceive and then present things this way so as to villify me. In politics it's called mud-slinging : you can't win on merit so you spread false rumors on the other candidate. Instead, try paying more careful attention to what I'm saying - you may actually learn something.

​

Joralex[This message has been edited by Joralex, 10-06-2003]

quote:

---

There you go yet again! There IS NO "quick definition" of metaphysics that I can give you that would be worth anything for discussion purposes. Try this : why don't you give me a "quick" rundown of the history of Communism - make it "quick", okay?

---

Karl Marx was a political theorist who came up with an idea regarding redistribution of wealth, putting a greater emphasis on physical labor than on a product itself, implying that the money should go to the worker rather than the business owner. His ideas were put into literary format by Friedrich Engels. The crux of their theory was that eventually the workers of the world would become so frustrated with their exploitation at the hands of the wealthy that they would revolt against the powers-in-government.Shortly thereafter, a gathering of intellectuals in Russia decided to bring about the workers' revoultion a little ahead of schedule. They sacked the Winter Palace, and began a regime that lasted throughout much of the 20th Century.After World War II, Russia was put squarely in opposition to the interests of America. The two countries entered into a cold war, which involved each country attempting to expand its influence into others, without ever directly facing one another. By this route, Communism became the system of government for several other countries surrounding Russia.In the early 1990s, the Communist government in Russia fell. A combination of military competition with America and a succession of leaders ranging from incapable to outright mad resulted in a complete bankruptcy of government funds. Although Russia's leader during the final fall, Mikhail Gorbechev, was an intelligent, capable man, it was too little too late. While several of the Communist governments put in place by Russia continue to this day, Communism's real heyday is over for now.How's that?Complete? No. Good enough for the basis of a simple discussion? Sure.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-06-2003]

Basically all you've done is make stupid statements "Stupid"?

​

I was once explaining to a friend of mine that matter and energy are essentially the same thing. He pointed at a table and then lit a match and pointed at the flame. He then said, "Same thing? Nahhh, that's stupid." Your remark here brought back that memory - I wonder why?which you claim are obvious and then, when asked to support them say "well, I couldn't possibly convince you, so I won't even try."Fine. Great. Then what the hell are you doing at EvC? Several things, actually. One of them is hoping to find someone that is a sincere seeker of truth. No luck so far. Although I must admit having run into a great many apostles of Naturalism seeking to spread their 'gospel'.Turn off your computer and go to bed. What's the point of posting here if we're all too dumb to be convinced? Here's where you're very wrong - I would never consider you or anyone as "too dumb". What keeps most people away from accepting the truth of God is NOT their IQ or their education, it's their spiritual attitude.

​

Also, I don't believe that I should "convince" anyone - it doesn't work this way. If I could only get some 'true seeking' out of you, you'd end up "convincing" yourself. All you need to do is listen with an open heart and, by all means, a critical, honest mind. That is God's promise, not mine.

​

Joralex

What we see is that you are making excuses rather than supporting your assertions while attacking people here for disagreeing with them.Anyone honestly seeking the truth would find that very questionable behaviour.I've run into Presuppositonalists before - I've seen the same pattern. And every time it was a bluff. Presuppositionalism appears to appeal to pseudo-intellectual bullies.

"How's that", you ask?If this were 7th grade class you'd get a passing grade - barely.What of the regimes of Mao, Pot, Castro, etc... etc...? Where is Lenin's name? Stalin's? Trotsky's?What of the financial system under Communism? What of the political thinking and historical events that led to Das Kapital? What of the fact that Marx was, early in age, a devout Christian and yet turned 180 degrees from this to become one of the extreme God-haters of all times? Why did this happen? Why was part of his political system directed against any form of religion?What of... what about... what about...???You've left so much out... this is the superficiality that I have alluded to.At a level beyond 7th grade your answer would be woefully superficial at best. I'd give it an F+ : the '+' is for spelling your name correctly. Joralex

As I said, Joralex... "Complete? No. Good enough for the basis of a simple discussion? Sure."Now ordinarily we wouldn't need such a simple history. But if I was to attempt to say, "You think Marx was a brilliant literary writer? Obviously you know nothing about the history of Communism," then suddenly this simple history becomes quite useful.And if I wasn't willing to provide even this simple history to back up my claim about Marx, then it would sure sound ridiculous of me to start shooting my mouth off about the ignorance of others.

Joralex, Can you r-e-a-d? Apparently not, please if you would kindly do some for comprehension, you would realise that I accept this, which makes most of your post an irrelevant whine.Go to the thread started for this very purpose, & explain why evolutionary theory is in some way wrong, compromised, incorrect, flawed, etc. Or explain why you brought up the subject of metaphysics & evolution. Oh, but you DO appear to know my level of education, or you wouldn't be presenting me with a reading list, would you? Or make comments like: So, no, it isn't nonsense, you clearly have made a judgement on my level of education, exacerbated by other comments such as: Other than your god awful debating ploy, you have provided nothing whatsoever than your assertion to support your position.So form of your argument stands. That you are more educated than I, therefore, I am wrong. I don't, nor can I, understand the correctness of your position, & you loftily assume I couldn't understand it even if you bothered.Why make an argument to mere mortals with your godlike insights?Mark

OK, lets go with numbers and strip this argument down to the bare bones.Does metaphysics prevent us from ever knowing what 2+2 is? Could it be 5, but our presuppositions and worldviews prevent us from seeing this? If it is truly 4 regardless of worldview or metaphysics and we are able to measure 2+2 without invoking metaphysics, then at what point does metaphysics come into play?So, is it 2+2=4, or is it 2+2=possibly 4?

Joralex This is your statement from post #124.Do you see the error you have made? I will give you one chance to rectify your mistake or explain why you misinformed your friend."I was once explaining to a friend of mine that matter and energy are essentially the same thing"

If I may.There is no metaphysical assumption in the statement, 2+2=4. Metaphysics is only necessary for anything which cannot be derived by logic, a priori without reference to the real world. 2+2=4 can be derived logically without reference to the real world, so no metaphysical assumption is required for it to work. However if you ask me the question "if Suzy has two apples, and Michael gives her two more apples, how many apples will she have?" and I reply "four" I am making a metaphysical assumption about the world.Does that make sense?The trouble of course with all of this is Philosophy's own blind spot, the assumption that logic and deductive reasoning is itself an ultimately solid foundation.Joralex:I do have a grounding in Philosophy, I have studied Popper and Kuhn (who was, incidently, wrong about his major theories), I do know what metaphysics is. You needn't explain these concepts to me. Now, would you like to explain what metaphysical assumption you feel Evolution makes that so weakens it's position? And what is so unique about these assumptions that you need not reject the rest of science too?[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 10-07-2003]

quote:

---

One of them is hoping to find someone that is a sincere seeker of truth. No luck so far.

---

I wonder... How will you recognise a sincere seeker of truth? As far as I am concerned, I have been seeking the truth for years.So here I am, Joralex. Now what?

quote:

---

What keeps most people away from accepting the truth of God is NOT their IQ or their education, it's their spiritual attitude.

​

If I could only get some 'true seeking' out of you, you'd end up "convincing" yourself. All you need to do is listen with an open heart and, by all means, a critical, honest mind. That is God's promise, not mine.

---

What do I need to convince myself of? I don't understand here. And my spiritual attitude?Ok, I realise this has nothing to do with the evolution of the eye, but I really want to understand what you're saying, Joralex. Please elaborate.The Rock Hound

Since you have spent considerable effort on the study of this you should be able to get it clear enough that even the thicker of us might "get it".You're aware that many people just lurk here without posting. So far they don't get to see your explaination for things. That is unfortunate. OTOH, if they are truly interested then they will ask, right... wouldn't you?Perhaps a topic in "Is It Science" would do. How about "Metaphysics of Science in General and of Evolutionary Theory Specifically"? That it what I think we can't see; that there is anything special about the metaphysics of biology. "Metaphysics of biology"? What's that?

​

The issue is 'metaphysical foundations of science (in general)'. And if you've been following, I am simply saying that this is a vast area that doesn't lend itself for this kind of platform - especially not with the number of ignorant scoffers continuously tossing out nonsensical garbage. I am a serious person and regard these matters as extremely important. It is a complete turn-off for me to read many of the posts of these scoffers.I'm afraid that, if you can't manage this after all your study, some might think you don't know what the difference is. Oh well... they may "think" whatever lights their candle.

​

NosyNed: if you're really interested then be my guest : joralex@earthlink.net. You may then ask away.

​

Otherwise, you may continue to believe whatever you wish to believe.

​

Joralex

I wonder... How will you recognise a sincere seeker of truth? Good question and a difficult one to answer. I treat it on a one-on-one basis since there are no two people alike. The rest is attitude, humility, persistence, interest and many other intangible yet perceptible factors.As far as I am concerned, I have been seeking the truth for years. Great! What "truth" are you seeking?So here I am, Joralex. Now what? Come now, what are you expecting - for me to write a few sentences that answer all your questions?

​

Ask yourself, "What do I truly think and believe that life is all about?"
This will give you a good start.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What keeps most people away from accepting the truth of God is NOT their IQ or their education, it's their spiritual attitude.
If I could only get some 'true seeking' out of you, you'd end up "convincing" yourself. All you need to do is listen with an open heart and, by all means, a critical, honest mind. That is God's promise, not mine.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What do I need to convince myself of? My point was more that neither I nor anyone is truly able to "convince" any other person but rather that we all "convince" ourselves of whatever position we desire. It's in the heart - what is the inclination of your heart?I don't understand here. And my spiritual attitude? See above. Spiritual attitude : does the idea of a God as described in the Bible make you want to get closer to Him or get away from Him?

​

For instance, many people are repulsed by even the thought of 'God' - that is their spiritual inclination/attitude on the matter. Other people feel drawn to God but allow all manner of obstacles (including 'what-will-people-think' and/or pride) to keep them from Him.Ok, I realise this has nothing to do with the evolution of the eye, but I really want to understand what you're saying, Joralex. Please elaborate. I hope I just did. Feel free to ask more or email me.

​

As for the evolution of the eye, that's just a very small part of this puzzle. To wit : human vision is one of the most complex systems that I personally know of. It is a very reasonable question to ask whether such a system is capable of 'evolution' via random mutations and natural selection occurring over millions of years. Science isn't even close to answering the questions regarding how this could have happened (setting aside fanciful speculations). Part of the 'evidence' presented are the vision systems of other creatures that are 'simpler' than our own. This is nothing more than circular reasoning for supporting a hypothesis. In light of all this, I personally find an evolutionary emergence of vision systems as extremely unlikely. In order to retain that hypothesis I would have to introduce a long series of other hypotheses - hypotheses that I find unconvincing and unnecessary. Many people do precisely this in order to retain the evolutionary paradigm and then they call it 'science'. Not me. How about you?

​

Joralex

quote:

---

I am a serious person and regard these matters as extremely important. It is a complete turn-off for me to read many of the posts of these scoffers.

---

My turn-offs include rainy days, and people who spit.