tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post1019668980744263474..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: "Why Darwinist Materialism is Wrong"mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-65708039421341205342012-11-29T11:27:43.422-05:002012-11-29T11:27:43.422-05:00"Studying the adaptive behaviour of living or..."Studying the adaptive behaviour of living organisms is not the same as projecting those observations into the past. To do so is to make the same assumptions the ID folks have, but to interpret the meaning of those assumed patterns differently."<br /><br />The science of evolution does not rely on simply projecting observations into the past, but KW's already pointed that out pretty well. It's also easy to falsify. If simpler organisms consistently showed up in the fossil record earlier than complex organisms, evolution would be falsified. If Ray Comfort's "crocoduck" were ever actually born, evolution would be falsified. Sorry, but science that studies the past is still science. <br /><br />"You ask me what science ID proponents have done? <br />I am sure you have a web browser (you are on this page, after all) - so search it"<br /><br />I have searched on the web. On ID websites, ID blogs, google, etc. I can find no testable ID hypotheses and no working ID research projects or programs. If you know of any, please by all means give me a link. <br /><br />"There is plenty of ID proponents making claims, just as there are plenty of the Darwinian persuasion making claims."<br /><br />Yes, they certainly make plenty of claims. They just haven't made any scientific claims. You are aware that Behe once famously testified that in order for ID to be considered science, the definition of science would need to be changed?<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64975137903522253882012-11-29T07:57:45.650-05:002012-11-29T07:57:45.650-05:00“Natural history (including evolutionary theories ...“Natural history (including evolutionary theories like Darwinian and ID) is a an attempt to piece together a HISTORY of biological development. Too peer into the past. <br />All such history is beholden to the technology and ideas of the present. The past, is just not falsifiable or demonstrable. <br />Sorry.”<br /><br />No, Evolutionary theory is far more than an attempt to piece together history. From combating constantly evolving pathogens, to managing wildlife populations, evolutionary theories give us a framework to predict what will happen in the future.<br /><br />Even if evolutionary theories where only useful for piecing together the history of biological development, observations could easily support or refute competing theories. For example, Darwinian evolution would take a blow and ID would be supported by finding a bird in a bed of trilobite fossils.<br /><br />-KW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74892179161924450162012-11-28T23:42:40.353-05:002012-11-28T23:42:40.353-05:00(reposted - wrong thread)
Boo,
You confusing scie...(reposted - wrong thread)<br />Boo, <br />You confusing science with natural history. <br />Studying the adaptive behaviour of living organisms is not the same as projecting those observations into the past. To do so is to make the same assumptions the ID folks have, but to interpret the meaning of those assumed patterns differently. <br />You ask me what science ID proponents have done? <br />I am sure you have a web browser (you are on this page, after all) - so search it. There is plenty of ID proponents making claims, just as there are plenty of the Darwinian persuasion making claims. <br />Where ID sees teleological function, you folks see mutation and variation. It is simply a different interp of the 'data'. <br />In truth, to me it sounds like a debate between Erich Van Daniken and Zacharia Stichin. I'm pretty sure (intuitively) you're BOTH way off base. But if I had to choose which is a more interesting read, I would go with ID. Why? Simply because it does not discount the corpus of human experience as irrelevant and does not rely entirely on nihilistic and/or self refuting philosophical argument.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72423554536060940552012-11-28T23:40:08.197-05:002012-11-28T23:40:08.197-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-53049962073095626432012-11-28T23:21:23.822-05:002012-11-28T23:21:23.822-05:00KW,
Sheer nonsense.
Natural history (including e...KW, <br />Sheer nonsense. <br />Natural history (including evolutionary theories like Darwinian and ID) is a an attempt to piece together a HISTORY of biological development. Too peer into the past. <br />All such history is beholden to the technology and ideas of the present. The past, is just not falsifiable or demonstrable. <br />Sorry. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19852540534385321172012-11-28T22:19:25.721-05:002012-11-28T22:19:25.721-05:00"Yea, the Modern Darwinian Synthesis would be..."Yea, the Modern Darwinian Synthesis would be falsified if one of its central predictions-- that the genome is loaded with junk DNA-- were shown to be false."<br /><br />The Modern Synthesis was formulated in the 30s and 40s. The term Junk DNA was coined in 1972. It is not central to the modern synthesis. It has also not been falsified, much as you might wish otherwise. Junk DNA which is transcribed is still junk.<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25442460182520225522012-11-28T22:14:28.792-05:002012-11-28T22:14:28.792-05:00This is simply false. The modern evolutionary synt...This is simply false. The modern evolutionary synthesis was formulated between 1936 and 1947. Ohno's article introducing the concept of junk DNA came out in 1972. Clearly, modern synthesis could not have been formulated without "one of its central predictions." <br /><br />FAILAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2477099902088028512012-11-28T22:13:04.372-05:002012-11-28T22:13:04.372-05:00CrusadeREX- evolution is science. ID isn't. It...CrusadeREX- evolution is science. ID isn't. It really is that simple. That some people choose to conflate the science of evolution with a "materialistic worldview" or philosophy or whatever has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory itself. No one adheres to evolution as dogma, that is projection on the part of creationists/IDers. The theory of evolution is modified in response to new data, as all scientific theories are. Hence, it is not dogma. <br /><br />And I will ask again: if ID is a better approach to doing science, why has it never produced any science? If they can do it better, why do they refuse to do it?<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-9273483103453112422012-11-28T21:58:53.796-05:002012-11-28T21:58:53.796-05:00"Evolutionary theory is entirely falsifiable;..."Evolutionary theory is entirely falsifiable; I can imagine a whole range of observations that would undermine its validity."<br /><br />Yea, the Modern Darwinian Synthesis would be falsified if one of its central predictions-- that the genome is loaded with junk DNA-- were shown to be false.<br /><br />Oh wait...mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-81960434960081025862012-11-28T20:27:33.305-05:002012-11-28T20:27:33.305-05:00The fact that nobody has come close to falsifying ...The fact that nobody has come close to falsifying the theory of evolution is not because it‘s not falsifiable, it’s because it’s right. Evolutionary theory is entirely falsifiable; I can imagine a whole range of observations that would undermine its validity. ID on the other hand is little more than a “god of the gaps” argument whose many examples have been refuted time and time again. <br /><br />-KWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-44707930065280733482012-11-28T19:21:34.370-05:002012-11-28T19:21:34.370-05:00Boo,
The whole point is that the Darwinian argume...Boo, <br />The whole point is that the Darwinian argument and the ID argument)are philosophical positions on a historical study of the origins and adaptation of life. Dressing them up as ultimately falsifiable theories is simply a category error. <br />Adhering to them as dogma is not a scientific position, rather it is a philosophical position. What makes the ID argument more robust is that it does not PRETEND that science is the only approach to understanding. Naturalism, for the most part, discards the value of philosophy and all non empirical studies as so much 'fluff'. <br />'Navel gazing' seems to be a favourite expression of that set. <br /><br />Nagel makes this point succinctly and from an Atheist perspective. He sees ID as just (if not more) as sound if not more so. <br />It is his prerogative as a philosopher to do so. <br />As philiosphy is the father of all natural sciences, it seems well within it's scope to help define the merit of the sciences, no?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74068057600978782422012-11-28T16:47:47.269-05:002012-11-28T16:47:47.269-05:00Why not drop the intellectual short-hand and make ...<i>Why not drop the intellectual short-hand and make a point of some sort?</i><br /><br />Pointing out that a criticism to a piece of work is just a Courtier's Reply <i>is</i> a point. It points out that the criticism is devoid of any merit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79534244755503347442012-11-28T16:46:24.723-05:002012-11-28T16:46:24.723-05:00Known: He's made more than one teleological ar...Known: He's made more than one teleological argument in his writing. Which one are you referring to? Are you perhaps referring to his inane teleological argument about evolution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13488136646791935132012-11-28T13:25:21.774-05:002012-11-28T13:25:21.774-05:00"Imagine someone holding forth on biology who...<i>"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."</i> <br /><br />Funny. That's precisely what Nagel does. Why should we take him seriously, again? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4988266612916528252012-11-28T13:22:03.288-05:002012-11-28T13:22:03.288-05:00George, you are a hilarious nutter. Almost as delu...George, you are a hilarious nutter. Almost as deluded as Egnor and much more clueless, judging by your uneducated guesses. You're not qualified to judge the science my <i>undergrads</i> do. LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67445915953953771832012-11-28T13:10:44.389-05:002012-11-28T13:10:44.389-05:00Perhaps instead of concentrating solely on persona...Perhaps instead of concentrating solely on personal attacks you could try to answer his claim.<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29572904640846424272012-11-28T13:07:30.261-05:002012-11-28T13:07:30.261-05:00"Darwinist Materialism" makes as much se..."Darwinist Materialism" makes as much sense as "Einsteinist Materialism" or "Cell Theory Materialism." All science deals with the material. If you know of a way for science to deal with the non-material, publish it and collect your Nobel Prize. <br /><br />"“In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism,” he writes, “heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives. Above all, I would like to extend the boundaries of what is not regarded as unthinkable, in light of how little we really understand about the world.”"<br /><br />How about instead of arguing with scientists that they're doing it wrong, go out and demonstrate some "non-naturalistic" way to do science? Why do you suppose the ID movement always argues that they know how to do it better than the "Darwinists" but they never actually do anything? The entire point of this post seems to be to conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical materialism. They are not the same thing.<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4351717783703254192012-11-28T12:30:39.388-05:002012-11-28T12:30:39.388-05:00Anon,
Why not drop the intellectual short-hand an...Anon, <br />Why not drop the intellectual short-hand and make a point of some sort? You know? Like your own ideas on the subjects being discussed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-26085345434401677192012-11-28T12:30:22.248-05:002012-11-28T12:30:22.248-05:00But birds exist, unlike the object of theology.But birds exist, unlike the object of theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83000983915103346882012-11-28T12:03:01.121-05:002012-11-28T12:03:01.121-05:00Egnor and I probably disagree on many things. So w...Egnor and I probably disagree on many things. So what?<br /><br />If you prefer science, I hope you know more about science than you know about philosophy. Although I doubt it.<br /><br />And when I observed you would be an embarrassment to a community college, I meant as a student, not, for heaven's sake, as a faculty member. I doubt very seriously you have the minimal academic credentials necessary to teach in one. Unselective as they may be, they must have <i>some</i> minimal criteria to qualify for Federal Student Indebtedness programs. George Boggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78942033476701476812012-11-28T11:48:39.738-05:002012-11-28T11:48:39.738-05:00Specifically, Plantinga's teleological argumen...Specifically, Plantinga's teleological argument would be the one Plantinga made about teleology.Knownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11558325238039968262012-11-28T11:45:38.594-05:002012-11-28T11:45:38.594-05:00That's the Courtier's Reply, and as is alm...That's the Courtier's Reply, and as is almost always the case when it is invoked, it is entirely unconvincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1565356732170349552012-11-28T11:44:39.109-05:002012-11-28T11:44:39.109-05:00Which one of his arguments are your specifically r...Which one of his arguments are your specifically referring to? He's produced more than one set of gibberish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87844268779502309462012-11-28T11:41:55.356-05:002012-11-28T11:41:55.356-05:00It looks like Egnor disagrees with you, George. He...It looks like Egnor <a href="http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-darwinist-materialism-is-wrong.html?showComment=1354113386240#c932465131893760183" rel="nofollow">disagrees with you</a>, George. He thinks it was a philosophical argument. Discuss.<br /><br />I will frankly admit that I do not care much for philosophy. I am not a philosopher (surprise!). I prefer science. Whether I would be an embarrassment to "a halfway-decent community college" is irrelevant because I don't have any inclination to teach there. I like my current place of employment, thank you very much. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57840837766447412072012-11-28T11:15:43.566-05:002012-11-28T11:15:43.566-05:00You mention Dawkins. I've always found Terry E...You mention Dawkins. I've always found Terry Eagleton's (former Warton Professor at Oxford) review of <i>The God Delusion</i> amusing and accurate:<br /><br />"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the <i>Book of British Birds</i>, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." George Boggsnoreply@blogger.com