quote:The problem comes if one thinks there are NONE.
Absolutely. Just as has been pointed out by other posters here, even the theory of gravity has problems associated with it; problems that some say are even more serious than the problems that exist in evolution theory. Science textbooks should certainly reflect the fact that there are always problems in science; when we get to the point that there are no more problems then we will no longer need science. But to my mind introducing philosophy into science classrooms is not the correct way to show students that science isn't perfect.
quote:Yes the stickers are bad but it is worse to be committed involuntarily if a few stickers or note about errors could have prevented it.
Are you talking about your own history? How could these stickers have had any effect on that?
you dont introduce philosophy you educate the teachers. The problem of c/e does not exist at the highschool level inmy day. It did on the college level. If there were stickers all over -doctors could not get away with what happened where the chemistry does matter. There is big business to get new drugs on the market and our generation was the guinea pigs no matter what the religious question is/was.
I had written a hypothesis and theory in high school. The doctor thought my quesions about electromagnetic waves was certifiable which is mild by evc standards and he tried to get me committed based on my "theory" in fact. I'll send out some more audio so you can hear how warped this whole things is IF ONE WANTS to DO THE CHEMICAL SCIENCE but have a different philosophy. The questions about physcis were THE RESULT of physics class where I got an A- at corenll not rutgers or uno . If the stickers said this was a theory and not a fact then the fact of my theory could not become the legal theory of the fact.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-25-2005 14:50 AM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-25-2005 14:51 AM
Don't beleive in God? Humans are made of cells. which are made of carbon. which is made of atoms. which are made of energy. everything is the universe is made of atoms. atoms are made of energy, so everything in the universe is made of energy. in the beginning of time, if there was a soul existance of energy, HOW, does that energy; evolve or change, into ANYTHING, without an outside sorce, a creator, God.=)
Ah I see what you are saying - the christian god was created by something more powerful that it's self. Very interesting - however it's off topic for this forum. I'm sure we have a "who created god" for you to discuss the matter further.
You might try to think if it is not true that evolutionary biology went through an historical period in which it tried to both speed up its pedegogical relations and rate and now one where it is being slowed materially by natural causes. If God has his finger in this pie then you should also follow Gould’s point about neturalist-selectionism in terms of how e/c is handled often here evc wise. Thanks for your spirit Brian. Gould got away wit hit because he tried to expand the conceptual apparatus of evolutionists and the narrative looked like it slowed things down except that the punctuation marked a change so different it was hard to see temporally. I think it is simply the need to accommodate various human views of the change into one domain of science rather than some inherent universality. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJGOULD
quote: “The chronological reaction of Darwinian hardliners to the neutral theory can be epitomized in a famous, if sardonic, observation about the fact of controversial theories. Tradition attributes this rueful observation to T.H.Huxley, but some form of the statement may well date to antiquity, the usual situation of such “universal” maxims. In any case, the earliest reference I know comes from the great embryologist von Baer, who attributed the line to Agassiz (von Baer, 1866, p.63, my translation): “Agassiz, says that wen a new doctrine is presented, it must go through three stages. First, people say that it isn’t true, then that it is against religion, and , in the third stage, that it has long been known.” The first two stages unfolded in their conventional manner, with quizzical denial followed by principled refutation in theory (se p.521 on Mayr’s argument that neutralism cannot be true because we now know the ubiquity of selection). However, the third stage – still stubbornly occupied by some strict Darwinians – arose with an interesting twist, providing a cardinal illustration for this section’s major theme: the dangers of parochialism, particularly the tendency to interpret all evolution from an organismal vantage point. Instead of simply stating that neutralism has long been known (so what’s the big deal?) detractors now tend to say:”well, yes, it’s true, and let’s be generous and give Kimura and company due credit. But after all, neutral substitutions only occur at sites without consequence for organismic phenotypes. So why focus upon such changes? Without any organismal effect, they can’t be important in evolution. And no one can blame Darwin or Darwinan tradition for ignoring an invisible phenomenon.”…bothstyles of change. In such cases, moreover, neutrality enjoys a special heuristic adavantage because random models yield general, quantitative predictions, while selectionist explanations usually require knowledge of particular circumstances that are much harder to decipher, and often impossible to quantify (for lack of requiste historical information).
Please don’t refuse Newton’s apple which was a root instead of waiting for me to explain how my understanding does indeed relax Wright’s constriction on Fisher in which he introduced this line BEFORE his reference to Haldane and multidimensional fitness space. Wright had said before penning this surface “My final conclusions on the relative importance of evolutionary factors can be stated”…”I am very sorry that I overlooked your treatment of mutations”…”I recognized at once that the discussion on these pages was meant to apply only under the constancy of external conditions, somewhat as the law of increase of entropy is meant only to apply to a system insulated from outside disturbances, but I assumed that all internal factors (including recurrent mutation under what would be considered constant environmental conditions) were intended to be taken into account. I do not now how I managed to overlook your clear statement to the contray on page 41. I think that if the theorem on page 35 had been stated with its qualifications: “The rate of increase in fitness of any population at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time, except as affected by mutation, migration, and change of environment and the effects of random sampling,” I would not have been confused by the discussion on the following pages.”Provine op cit
We are confusing so called “visible joint frequencies” and cross level biophysical reality not GOD. Tolerance makes it difficult to do biology but it is not difficult to write.
well, the point i was trying to make is that everything can be broken down into energy,movement,phisical form, even thought. and for energy to take form of any kind it would require something far beyond our comprehention, something that would know anything and everything,and have the power to do anything, the christian god.
That's fine by me. I assume any resolution of Gibbs' "paradox" would have to deal with that, i.e. that any application of the 2nd law of thermodyanics must adhere to the 1st no matter how the "third" might be interpreted in a thought. I just dont understand why you started from the question if I believed in GOD or not. Like Brian said, that is not even what my understanding would be if it were but NOT hypothetically correct. Indeed I could have it better indeed, but I dont see how my reasoning depends on my faith (or not). You had it as a question did younot? I had hoped this thread was going to be an explanation of what I understood not a general one to discuss me personally but I seem to be loosing that battle of thread divisions.I often think I perceive that people dont use fourth section fo Kant's anitnomy of pure reason (of the necessity imposed upon pure reason of presenting a solution of its transcendetal problems) a posteriori but this does not prevent me from thinking I have kept them seperate properly myself even if was wrong about others sans god.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-27-2005 16:08 AM
There is clearly an "outside" to the science of biological evolution.
In review of the material up to the the present century I found out that there was some ambiguity in the notion of tissue and organ which after the results of so-called evo-devo have had me wondering if the notion of the "cell" is a fundamental as our elementary textbooks segregated. It is hard for me to work this outline into the notion of mass-spaced coincidence so I would not use the "or" you did determinatively because it is through reflection not materialility itself that I found the same outside. So I have to not confuse the culture of change from the energy of the sociology of the same practicality.