Deranvich essay on Natural Selection at Infidels.org
backspace
It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be
resolved anytime soon, and why should it? With the recent squabbles
in states throughout America, and the Dawkinses and Dembskis trading
haymakers with each other, things are only getting interesting.
Although I am merely a ringside observer, I am here to blow the
whistle on some apparent foul play which I have observed. It is up to
you to determine whether any of the participants should be
disqualified.
Let's go to the videotape...
Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin
defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently
self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive
dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they
were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe
could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to
comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No
sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they
reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be.
Let me give you examples.
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
Design theory ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume,
are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as
concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as
being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent
design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean
something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the
very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than
that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a
plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in
Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is
not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically
complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word
"design" is incorrect. And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of
words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to
describe something that can't possibly exist.
Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described
human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers"
with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and
randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random
"improvements." In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the
Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians
and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable
form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly
creation." [2] That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist
cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable
to whom, and on what basis? Another term which receives heavy usage
is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard. But in order
for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or
standard to fulfill. If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is
supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success?
What if chickens were supposed to fly? What if beavers were supposed
to build A-frames? Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful
if it exists. Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble.
Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen
Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself
to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to
refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable
knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a
higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to
positive feedback.[3] Maybe evolution is a focus group!? Whether it
is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin
defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given
their presuppositions. One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to
eat from it!
It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural
selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's
validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word
couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term
"cybersex." If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably
wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in
Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks
to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in
Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes
of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true
to its object. Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of
adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word
which it is only supposed to modify. Contrarily, one could have a
blue book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book. One
could make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a
selection. But natural? A selection is a choice, and only a conscious
being that can process information can really make a choice, or even
input information into a system which will later result in a choice.
However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of
existence, that is an occurrence. We are comfortable with "natural
selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother
Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a
technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron.
I know what this proves. It proves absolutely nothing. This is
innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque
theories about the inadequacy of language. One could say that a
critique based on language is aimed at the most inconsequential part
of any argument, like saying that Kierkegaard would have been more
compelling if he had typed in New Times Roman. However, a more
careful consideration will reveal that exactly the opposite is true,
at least in this case. The words used by modern-day Darwinists are not
a sidelight, they are symptomatic of a fissure in the structure of
their thought. I believe that when someone wrongly calls the
evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of
sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing. It
is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word
that will work. It is because there is something brilliant, something
awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct
is to want to know who gets credit for it. The impulse is innate and
proper. It is the decision to give credit to an abstract and
unauthored "process" which is out of sync.
Let me make the point in a more obvious way. Here are two written
accounts:
A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with
each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster
dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into
its component elements.
B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially
motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K.
Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports,
Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the
building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According
to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's
cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the
earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
If asked where these two fictitious excerpts came from, most would say
that A was from a textbook or scientific journal, and probably
describes events observed under a microscope or in a laboratory. B
would be a typical example of newspaper journalism. Most people would
say that, of course, they are not talking about the same thing. But
could they be? Well, to the materialist, the answer is certainly
negative. To those who don't take their Darwinism decaffeinated, who
embrace it as a philosophy which excludes any non-natural explanations
for life's origins, the answer is absolutely. B perhaps wins on style
points, but the content is the same. Any outrage or emotion felt upon
reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response,
but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had
happened. In this view, A is probably the most responsible account.
Nature, with its fittest members leading the way, marches on. I think
I would be correct in stating that many would disagree with, or be
offended by, that analysis. What I am not really sure of, and would
like explained to me, is why? What is in view is not so much of a
Missing Link, as much as a Missing Leap: the leap from the physical to
the metaphysical. Taken as a starting point, I have no problem with
quantitative assessments. They establish a baseline of knowledge for
us.
But what about life? Life is an elusive concept that cannot be
quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent
book. [4] Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life,
one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers
life. Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are
supplemented with the vision of the mind. No biologist contemptuous
of metaphysics can claim, if he is consistent, that he has observed
life, let alone its evolution. We then start to have an aesthetic
appreciation for the beauty and ingenuity of these life forms, and it
is not long before we get around to talking about abstract concepts
such as rights, justice, and equality, and assigning some species -
namely, us - some kind of moral responsibilities for them, none of
which can be measured according to scientific methods.
I think it is safely assumed by all parties that, although we have
some physical and behavioral characteristics in common, humans are
significantly more intelligent and sophisticated than our mammal
friends, and possessed of a vastly different consciousness. For
whatever reason, we are unique enough to make us "special." The
problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less
why, this consciousness emerged. And a bigger problem is the
strangeness of our consciousness: abstract self-doubt, philosophical
curiosity, existential despair. How does an intense awareness of my
accidental existence better equip me for battle? Why do we consider
compassion for the sick to be a good thing when it can only give us a
disadvantage in our vicious eat-or-be-eaten world? Why would these
traits emerge so late in the game, when one would think evolution
would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines? We cannot
acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution, any more
than a sine wave can develop separation anxiety. And yet many who
swear by the powers of Darwin and empiricism also cling,
hypocritically, to a quite unproven assumption that the human race is
somehow set apart, created for a glorious destiny. Just as
determinists argue undeterministically, scientists believe
unscientifically. The most serious offenders in this category have to
be the various minds behind the Humanist Manifesto, who roundly reject
the metaphysical even as they affirm it, by assumption, in their grand
prescriptions for humanity. This is called talking out of two sides
of the mouth. Now, biologically speaking, developing this trait would
be a great way for an organism to gain a tactical advantage in the
struggle for survival. Unfortunately, it also opens the creature up
for easy attack in life's intellectual jungles. These contradictory
assumptions met each other vividly in the theater of mainstream
culture last year, during the pop radio reign of "Bad Touch," the
Bloodhound Gang song. You know the song: it was the one with the
refrain of "You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals / So let's do
it like they do on the Discovery Channel." It was pure Darwinism for
the dance floor and became an instant dorm room classic, despite (or
most likely, because of) the fact that it was too explicit for the
kitsch it aspired to. The party music stopped, however, upon arrival
of Thornhill and Palmer's The Natural History of Rape, the book that
investigated whether rape was a genetically determined trait that
enabled humans to climb the evolutionary ladder. The book's research
was as swiftly refuted as The Bell Curve's. However, the white-hot
center of controversy surrounding this book was not the research, but
the inferences that might have been made from it: the fear that rape
could be rationalized, or even accepted, on a biological basis. The
science may have been bad, but the logic is faultless. Why can't a
chameleon's color change, a bat's sonar, and a man's sexual coercion
all be examples of successful evolutionary "design"? Given the
absence of any empirical alternative to social Darwinism, the
nonconsensual Discovery Channel bump-and-grind is a pretty educated
approach to sexual ethics. I repeat: one cannot deny the cake, and
then proceed to eat from it.
That, then, is why the language is confused: because the ideas are
confused, because the mind is confused. To the extent that our
Darwinians and humanists seek answers to humanity's dilemmas using the
natural sciences, they are absolutely on the right track. To the
extent that they reject the idea of a divine or supernatural creator
using the natural sciences, they are not only overstepping the
boundaries of their field, but they are plainly contradicted by their
language, their goals, and their lives. G.K. Chesterton, writing a
century ago, astutely observed this dichotomy in the modern mind when
he said that "the man of this school goes first to a political
meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were
beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific
meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts." [5] It is
precisely this incongruity which remains unaccounted for today. This
incongruity was raised to heights both humorous and sublime by noted
Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, writing an essay for the Atlantic
Monthly called "The Biological Basis of Morality." In it, Wilson
outlines the argument for his suspicion that morals, ethics, and
belief in the supernatural can all be written off to purely materially-
originating, evolutionary-guided brain circuitry, and that's that.
In the light of this, he suggests in his conclusion that evolutionary
history be "retold as poetry, " because it is more intrinsically grand
than any religious epic.[6] But if moral reasoning is just a lot of
brain matter in motion, where does that leave appreciation for poetry?
And seeing that poetry has a definite beginning and an end, as well as
an author and a purpose, isn't the evolutionary epic the very last
thing that could be told as poetry? Besides, who could possibly come
up with a rhyme for lepidoptera? If life is a drama, then it needs a
Bard; and we need to learn to acknowledge our cosmic Bard, just like
Alonso in the final act of The Tempest:
This is as strange a maze as e'er men trod,
And there is in this business more than nature
Was ever conduct of. Some oracle
Must rectify our knowledge.
1. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes," Time
Magazine 154 no. 8, August 13, 1999.
2. Theodore Schick, Jr., "When Humanists Meet E.T.," Free Inquiry 20
no.3, Summer 2000, pp. 36-7.
3. Robert Wright, "The Accidental Creationist," The New Yorker, Dec.
30,
1999, pp. 56-65.
4. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science, (Wilmington, DE:
ISI Books, 2000, p. 97).
5. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (NY: Image Books, 1990, pp 41-2).
6. E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," The Atlantic
Monthly 281 no. 4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.
=== Response by Richard Carrier ===
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89
On Darwinian Dissonance
{{{
I am sure feedback here will be furious and some perhaps excessively
hostile, but I want to make sure something calm and correct gets said.
First, I like this essay. As an analytical philosopher I am always
happy to see people calling for more rigor and clarity in the use of
terminology. And the mistakes you make, Mr. Dernavich, which I will
discuss below, are not so much your fault as that of the multifarious
writers you quote: they failed us by not ceing clear. I am sure even I
have done this on numerous occasions, and am always thankful when
given the chance to correct myself. Moreover, I don't think you chose
a biased and selective portion of writers: I think by and large your
sample accurately reflects the trends, and thus demonstrates the
obscurity and unhelpfulness of much that is said for natural
selection. In that respect, without your essay I would never have
written the following critique, and thus no progress on this matter
would have been made.
I could defend some of Pigliucci's obscure idioms but perhaps he would
prefer to do that himself. For example, "chaotic self-organizing" is
not a contradiction in terms, but that would not be apparent to anyone
who was not already versed in the basics of chaos theory and thus
understood things such as "strange attractors" and whatnot. But no one
should assume their readers have that background. And I certainly
won't defend the sloppy and prosaic quasi-hack journalistic writing of
periodicals like Time magazine. Instead, just the key issues that
everyone should know:
"Valuable to whom?" To us. Many secularists defend an objective
ethical system in which the fact that humans have value is true
irregardless of where we came from (evolution or otherwise). But that
isn't necessary. Subjectivism does not entail what its critics claim,
and is perfectly compatible with moral values being universally true.
It is not too hard to agree with the fact that value is mind-
dependent: you cannot have values without a valuer, and when we poll
human beings, after providing them with all the facts relevant to the
matter (and thus not listening to ignorant or misled people), 99%
would agree that humans are valuable and the best thing nature has
ever produced since the bananna. The other 1% are mainly comprised of
suicidally-murderous psychopaths. But the question of the nature and
basis for values is the philosophical field called metaethics (or just
"ethical theory"), and is not directly related to the issue of natural
selection. If you want to say that secularists cannot say these
things, then you are debating metaethics, not natural selection or
creation, and you might get pounded on that issue. Even though that
was the eventual thrust of your argument, the essays we have under
Morality and Atheism already collectively rebut your argument.
"If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have
originated, how can we say anything is a success?" Because life is its
own "purpose" in this sense: that is, if it can live (as in
replicate), then it is a success. If it cannot, then it is a failure.
Indeed, this is a self-fulfilling tautology: that which lives
reproduces. That which does not live does not reproduce. So this is
where life's basic blind "purpose" comes from: from the bare, mindless
fact that life reproduces. No intelligence is needed to make this so.
That is why so much of nature's products are so astonishingly absurd,
from the peacock to the kamakazee ant. Of course, this is all amply
explained in a good college-level textbook on evolution. But we cannot
expect so much as 5% of the population to have even seen one of those,
much less actually read it.
Damn the metaphors! Full speed ahead! I am not one to play Grinch to
those who enjoy the artistic use of language. Apt metaphors and
analogies can often convey meaning faster and deeper, and more
beautifully, than tedious descriptions. But you are right to worry
that this is unwise in the present hostile atomosphere, where, as in
politics, every word that can be taken out of context or
misinterpreted is potentially suicidal. But we should still be
intellectually charitable. The rule of intellectual charity is: if
there is any sense in which what a writer says can be understood that
is consistent with everything else he says, then odds are that is what
he meant. Creationists are not charitable people in this respect, and
so it is inept to expect them to be, but all reasonable people should
be charitable in this way, and that includes you and me. Thus, for
example, nature is in fact a "tireless engineer," in that she never
ceases to do her work (evolution is constant and unstoppable) and the
"work" we are singling out here is not, say, the weather (which is
equally tireless), but the production of a machinery of life, which
can be said to have been "engineered" (as in arranged and built) by
the three central forces of natural selection: reproduction, mutation,
and selection. None of the three forces involves or requires
intelligence, yet all three together produce wonderful machines. Of
course, this is what defenders of natural selection should be
explaining, and it is indeed what they try to communicate in books on
the subject. Dawkins can perhaps be excused for taking it for granted,
when speaking in a brief article, that any would-be critic of his
words will take the trouble to read his book on the issue first.
Is "natural selection" a "misleading oxymoron"? Is "metallic hue"?
Even though there might be no metal in it? Is "postage stamp" a
misleading oxymoron even though it is a sticker? Is "political party"
to be impugned for changing the basic meaning of party? After all,
drinks and chips and friendly snogging on the couch are not what a
political party is supposed to refer to, scandals notwithstanding. One
could list endless examples, from "hot dog" to "blow job" (women might
agree it is a job, certainly the ones who get paid to do it, but
blowing is rarely involved). Science is especially in need of such
constructions, from "somatic cell" to "power cell," from "ecological
niche" to "architectural niche," even terms that clearly are
oxymorons, like "centrifugal force" and "electron orbit." Complaining
about this sort of terminological confusion is inappropriate: we need
to educate the public on the proper, formal meaning of the terms in
their respective contexts, not corrupt scientific vocabulary to suit
popular ignorance.
Why this metaphor? You propose the answer "Because that is what is
really going on." I propose: "Because our brains weren't built any
other way." A great deal of work has been done lately showing how hard
it is for humans to think rationally and scientifically: rational and
scientific methods are unnatural and counter-intuitive. The only
reason we force ourselves against the grain to employ them is that
they work a hell of a lot better than the sort of thinking our brains
are actually built to do. This is shown quite clearly in books like
Alan Cromer's Uncommon Sense, Stuart Vyse's Believing in Magic,
Michael Shermer's How We Believe, and Stew Guthrie's Faces in the
Clouds, as well as a lot of recent papers in scientific journals on
the God Module. The point is: our consciousness developed as a means
to suss out the intentions of other thinking creatures, and thus to
seek out patterns that belie motives and plans and allow us to predict
the behavior of others like us. Even our pre-conscious brain
development was geared toward recognizing patterns and seeking design:
and it was safer to see design where it wasn't, than to miss it when
it was really there. Thus, our brains were built to err--but err in a
way that is more beneficial to our survival than erring in the other
direction.
With self-referential consciousness we can now identify and correct
these errors, but it is uphill work. And we will never be able to
shake the fact that our brains are still built a certain way and thus
will always be readier to understand things when couched in certain
primitive metaphors. For instance, it has been shown that people
remember and learn better when they are told an interesting story that
contains the key material, than if the key material is meticulously
explained to them in a rationally-organized lecture. That is not very
efficient, but it's the way we are, and complaining about it is an
exercise in futility. Thus, do not begrudge humans who understand more
easily what nature does by drawing analogies from human life: a storm
is "fierce," a winter is "cruel," the stock market is a "bear,"
electricity "seeks" a path of least resistance. Does any of this
entail that we think there is a thinking, feeling intelligence behind
these things? No. Is there any better way to express them? Not really.
It could be done, but it would require a dull and laborious
paraphrasis--which goes against the point of language in the first
place: the rapid and efficient communication of ideas.
"B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same [as A]."
Incorrect. You have violated the law of excluded middle: A contains B
as a possible case, but it also contains countless other entirely
different cases, and therefore A is a genus and B is a species. This
means they are not equivalent and thus do not share all the same
content any more than "mammal" and "mouse" share the same content. One
would be ill advised to think that "mammal" means "mouse," for an
elephant might be around the corner. And one cannot say "I understand
what a mammal is, therefore I know what an elephant is." He who
understands A does not understand B, only a fractional part of B, and
this fact invalidates your use of A and B in your analysis, and in
fact this error plagues and thus totally destroys the rest of your
argument about morality and values.
The problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much
less why, this consciousness emerged. Anyone who says "Science cannot
explain..." had better wash their foot--for they will have to put it
in their mouth eventually. Indeed, a great deal of work has been done
on this very question in just the last ten years, and several
comprehensive theoretical research programs have been proposed (I
count at least ten books on the subject going to print this year; but
for past work see the forthcoming Essential Sources in the Scientific
Study of Consciousness). Indeed, your analysis would be much better
informed if you had read even one of them, or something in
evolutionary psychology. For example:
And a bigger problem is the strangeness of our consciousness: abstract
self-doubt, philosophical curiosity, existential despair. How does an
intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for
battle? As has been well-argued in hundreds of books on the subject in
the last two decades, consciousness serves the function of social
awareness, not combat. Indeed, a pack of wolves can tactically
outsmart the average human, and the strategic genius of ant colonies
is much to be admired. Instead, by being able to model human
perception and self-awareness in ourselves, we are able to model the
thought processes of others and thus predict their interests and
behavior with astonishing accuracy. Once this tool met up with
language, the brain became a powerhouse for the communication of
acquired characteristics (and as anyone versed in the dispute between
Lemarckian and Darwinian evolution would know, that is a vast
advantage over the ordinary processes of inheriting characteristics
which are painfully slow).
Everything peculiar about human thought is the byproduct of these
developments, and others like them, whether the byproduct is useful or
not (and nature wouldn't know--mere life or death decides, and
mercilessly). For every advantage comes at a price. Just think how
much energy we waste feeding this absurdly huge brain of ours. The
peacock's feathers are a liability in battle and flight, but the
advantage in winning a mate outweighs that in terms of differential
reproductive success. The kamakazee ant commits suicide so that its
colony can prosper--and thus, in effect, it ensures the survival of
those genes it shares with its fellow ants that live as a result of
its altruistic death. And so on. None of nature's homoncula are
perfect, and most, if we were to attribute them to an intelligent
creator, would be insane (the platypuss comes to mind, or the guinea
worm). Nature's creations are ad hoc, sometimes ridiculous, yet they
succeed because they nevertheless work, and nothing better was hit
upon, and that is what makes her blind.
In the end, misled by your fallacious exclusion of the middle term,
you commit the nefarious "A is just a B" fallacy, which has bred such
embarassing arguments like "An animal is just a clump of cells, cells
can't walk, therefore animals can't walk." You, likewise, argue that
there is an incongruity between scientific knowledge and humanist
values because "moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in
motion," and since brain matter in motion can't produce a justified
set of moral values, therefore there is no justified set of moral
values. This is the same fallacy as the animals can't walk example.
Thus, you fell victim to the very confusion you attributed to
scientific humanists.
}}}
==== Richard Carrier quotes ====
Thus, for example, nature is in fact a "tireless engineer," in that
she never ceases to do her work (evolution is constant and
unstoppable) and the "work" we are singling out here is not, say, the
weather (which is equally tireless), but the production of a machinery
of life, which can be said to have been "engineered" (as in arranged
and built) by the three central forces of natural selection:
reproduction, mutation, and selection. None of the three forces
involves or requires intelligence, yet all three together produce
wonderful machines.
=== Dernavich replies ===
{{{
Thanks for the comments. I hope that progress has been made, and not
just a lot of vitriolic vein-popping, as is sometimes the case. I have
appreciated all of the feedback, criticism included, that has been
posted thus far. On most of the above points, I will leave you to the
last word. I do, however, have one bone to pick which is vital and
foundational, and which cuts across the grain of almost all of the
arguments.
You say that metaethics is not directly related to natural selection.
I beg to differ! If all that we are is a function of natural
selection, then how can it not be? How can we separate ourselves from
the processes of our own development to analyze that development? When
a person has a panic attack, a heart attack, or an aneurysm, he cannot
coolly remove himself from it, and figure out how to cure himself. He
is a part of the attack. Same with a dream. We cannot remove our minds
from the dream to take notes on it and analyze it. Our brains, and
therefore our thoughts, are a direct result of the forces and
processes which formed it and govern it. So if everything in the
cosmos, including our humble selves, is a result of nothing more than
unconscious forces working against physical substances, then how are
we any different? This consciousness you speak of is not "awareness,"
as we understand it, it is just a word that describes how the
impersonal forces act upon one certain type of organism. "Awareness,"
given the above presuppositions, is a delusion - a beneficial one in
terms of survival, but still a delusion. And we are not really
debating right now, at least not in the ordinary sense of "debate,"
because there would be no such thing as independent thought.
One of the most tired ideas which is consistently repeated by
evolutionists is that religious belief is only the outworking of the
self-preservation mechanism; a psychological phenomena that allows
creatures to somehow achieve a sense of self-worth and purpose. Wilson
is one of the chief offenders in this category, and that is why I
mentioned him. It never occurs to anyone that the secularist opinion,
that humans are intrinsically special and should agree on some
universal moral values, could be explained away by the same logic.
Indeed, it makes even more sense. You say that there is 99% agreement
among humans that we are valuable: of course there is! A successful
species like ourselves could not get far thinking that we were moss to
be trampled. But that is only animal self-preservation. You said as
much yourself: "our brains were built to err--but err in a way that is
more beneficial to our survival than erring in the other direction."
But it proves nothing, and it especially does not solve the question
of if there is any higher reason, outside of the selfish instinct
toward self-preservation, that we are so special, or should observe
ethics or morals of any kind.
We are conscious beings, and we are unique creatures in the universe.
These things are assumed in the minds of secular Darwinists, because
it appears implicitly and explicitly in their writing. The problem is,
only the possibility of the existence of an intelligent, conscious
designer can account for them. People don't need to come up with new
words. They need to come up with new thoughts.
}}}
wf3h
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
> >
> Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin
> defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently
> self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive
> dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they
> were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe
> could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to
> comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed
who is 'they'? where do 'they' say this and what is the context? this
is so vague as to be meaningless. for a guy who has an obsession about
language used by scientists, your language is shoddy to say the
least.
and no one i know of says there is no god based on science. what IS
the case is that ID is NOT science because it has no testable
mechanism. ID is like trying to build cars without factories.
and it's an old, old idea that predates science. it's been used to
explain everything from earthquakes to disease...and it failed every
time
why do creationists think ID is new? why do they think it's been
successful when it's ALWAYS failed??
>
> Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
> Design theory
this is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. it's hard to justify
your statement that scientists all think this way when you've given no
proof of this in any scientific publications.
If these terms mean
> something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
> anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves.
so they don't mean anything specific at all. where DO you get your
ideas that 1 article on a website is relevant to ALL of science? this
is slipshod thinking so characteristic of creationists
For the
> very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than
> that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a
> plan, or an intellect.
and WHERE do you get THIS? are you the OED? who appointed you
guardian of language...a language you have, at best, a tenuous grasp
of?
Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in
> Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication.
'by implication'. ANOTHER vague characteristic. this is your whole
argument...'implications'...vagueness..shoddyness....
it's incoherent...totally without meaning.
.
>
> Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described
> human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers"
> with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and
> randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random
> "improvements."
ah, yes, time magazine...the world's foremost peer reviewed science
journal.
>
> Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen
> Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself
> to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to
> refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable
> knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a
> higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to
> positive feedback.[3] Maybe evolution is a focus group!? Whether it
> is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin
> defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given
> their presuppositions. One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to
> eat from it!
?? when did the new yorker become a peer reviewed science journal? you
seem to have ALOT of inside information regarding science that no
SCIENTISTS are aware of!
and 'engineer' has LOTS of definitions that you skip over...more vague
arguments...
and this is the BEST you can do? references from 'time' and the 'new
yorker' as proof science is wrong? arguments by 'implication'?
grade school dramatics....truly meaningless.
>
> It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural
> selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's
> validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word
> couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term
> "cybersex."
well, yes, if you get your science from 'time' magazine you probably
DO have such a view of science. what's next? chemistry tips from 'home
and garden'?
. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes
> of sex, as either God or nature intended it.
what god? where does 'god' enter the equation? you haven't shown the
NEED for god to explain anything at all. you simply drop his name into
the conversation like some B grade actor at a cocktail party trying to
impress someone.
who is 'god'? where do we find 'god'? you haven't said. more shoddy
use of language
As a
> technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron.
yeah, i can understand this from someone who thinks 'time' magazine is
a peer reviewed science journal and who thinks the idea 'god did it'
explains anything at all about nature.
>
> I know what this proves. It proves absolutely nothing. This is
> innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque
> theories about the inadequacy of language.
uh...no. natural selection has a mechanism that is lab testable.
creationism? it explains nothing. saying 'god did it' is the most
egregious abandonment of the intellect in human history. it explains
nothing AND closes off further analysis. it destroys logic and reason.
it's one reason why, for thousands of years, humans made NO progress
at all in explaining nature.
I believe that when someone wrongly calls the
> evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of
> sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing. It
> is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word
> that will work. It is because there is something brilliant, something
> awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct
> is to want to know who gets credit for it. The impulse is innate and
> proper. It is the decision to give credit to an abstract and
> unauthored "process" which is out of sync.
how do you implement a 'purposeful design'? can you draw up a
blueprint and watch while it magically jumps off your desk and
instantly transforms into an object?
no. no you can't. you need a PROCESS to transform design into reality
and creationists say such processes don't exist. they merely subsume
process into religion and destroy the very need for any laws or
language at all.
there's no merit in intelligent design. it's a term without meaning,
without reference, without context. it says nothing about nothing. and
creationists seem quite proud of it.
B perhaps wins on style
> points, but the content is the same. Any outrage or emotion felt upon
> reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response,
> but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had
> happened.
and this has what to do with science? you're trying to introduce
morality into an area where it does not belong.
NO science is moral. NO science is teleological. you can sit here and
randomly introduce concepts like 'morality' and 'leisure suits' into
science....but that does not make those ideas scientific, NOR does it
prove that science is incomplete without them
science works. that's a fact. creationism does not. that's also a
fact. 'morality' is a metaphysical concept. why do you think science
is incomplete without it, other than your religion SAYS it is?
> But what about life? Life is an elusive concept that cannot be
> quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent
> book.
ah, yes, the late stanley jaki...who died just last week...
[4] Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life,
> one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers
> life. Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are
> supplemented with the vision of the mind.
more vague, meaningless language. what is 'mind'? how is it defined?
measured? why does science need it?
you have no answers to these so you simply drop these ideas into the
discussion as if they had merit. they do not nor have you established
a context for doing so.
We cannot
> acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution, any more
> than a sine wave can develop separation anxiety.
more garbage. again and again creationists try to introduce teleology
into science. they did so when physics was invented...and they do so
to day with biology.
the idea is dead. stone cold dead. it has no relevance to science
whatsoever, so the creationist BEGS and PLEADS to be let into the
discussion like a homeless begger seeking shelter.
science does not seek, nor does it need, 'purpose' in nature. as
cardinal shoenborn pointed out in his 'first things' essay, 'purpose'
has no meaning in science and it destroys the very concept of science.
> We are conscious beings, and we are unique creatures in the universe.
> These things are assumed in the minds of secular Darwinists, because
> it appears implicitly and explicitly in their writing. The problem is,
> only the possibility of the existence of an intelligent, conscious
> designer can account for them. People don't need to come up with new
> words. They need to come up with new thoughts.
>
>
you are making an ancient argument. one that held the human race in
slavery and bondage to ignorance for thousands of years.
you ASSUME nature has 'purpose' and that ANY study which does not
confirm this is incomplete.
this idea held back human reason for thousands of years. as humans
sought 'purpose' in nature, they projected their own ignorance into
nature. they sought to prove that which they already assumed was true:
that some 'god' existed which gave 'purpose' to nature.
and that idea, as laplace pointed out, is useless. for thousands of
years creationists tried this shell game and it's sterile. it led
nowhere. it was an envelope around the human intellect which prevented
reason from entering.
the laws of nature exist apart from human beings. science discovers
what they are. science does not invent nature, nor does it seek to
project into nature what is not there...purpose.
you creationists are welcome to INSIST that science MUST find purpose
in nature;. that does not create an obligation on the part of science
to include purpose, NOR does it create an obligation in nature to HAVE
purpose.
if you creationists think your magical views of nature have merit,
then prove it. you have failed for THOUSANDS of years to do so; and
that's why you INSIST science do what you have FAILED to do.
creationism is a failure. if it wasn't science wouldn't exist. the
fact that science does NOT find purpose in nature is a rebuke to
creationism and the metaphysics of 'purpose' in nature. but
creationists plead that ignorance is a god given value that must be
supported by science.
and it's why the most religious societies on earth today...primarily
the islamist societies of the arab world...are also the most
backwards. we have an objective test of how finding 'purpose' in
nature works out. and the fact is, it doesn't. if you think saudi
arabia is a role model for science then you're a creationist.
John Harshman
Ah, another person who has trouble with metaphors. No wonder backspace
quotes him at length. For anyone who may be unclear, none of these
phrases has a scientific definition. They're all Pigliucci's own
metaphorical language, which he is presumably using to try to clarify
how natural processes can produce something very like the results of
conscious design.
[snip more confusion about metaphors]
[The comment seems more reasonable, though, and corrects some of the
silly problems with the original article]
Robert Camp
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
<snip>
> I know what this proves. It proves absolutely nothing.
Out of the reams of pseudo-critical bafflegab written here, the author
does produce this one shining moment of lucidity. It is an observation
best kept at hand while reading the rest of his piece.
> This is
> innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque
> theories about the inadequacy of language. One could say that a
> critique based on language is aimed at the most inconsequential part
> of any argument, like saying that Kierkegaard would have been more
> compelling if he had typed in New Times Roman.
Here we see that the keys to correctly interpreting the issue are
obvious and available. Embellishment, laziness, careless metaphors,
imprecision of language; all of these apply, and our intrepid author
appears to be well aware of this. Until...
> However, a more
> careful consideration will reveal that exactly the opposite is true,
> at least in this case.
...his intellectual train is derailed by fidelity to some personal
philosophical conceit.
It is vacuous nonsense to say that "exactly the opposite it true."
More careful consideration, by any measure, must include the opinions
of the scientists using the language in question and virtually every
one of them will assert that their usage is not a reflection of the
fact that design "is the only idea that will work," or that it "is the
only word that will work" (see below). It is powerfully transparent
special pleading to even suggest this kind of simplistic explanation,
as if years of education and expertise are secondary to some singular
ability to perceive the Truth in language. What naive tripe.
> The words used by modern-day Darwinists are not
> a sidelight, they are symptomatic of a fissure in the structure of
> their thought. I believe that when someone wrongly calls the
> evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of
> sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing. It
> is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word
> that will work. It is because there is something brilliant, something
> awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct
> is to want to know who gets credit for it. The impulse is innate and
> proper. It is the decision to give credit to an abstract and
> unauthored "process" which is out of sync.
The obvious fact of metaphorical expression in biological observations
in no way diminishes the notion that there is "something brilliant,
something awesome, and something significant about our world." And it
does the observation of awe and significance a huge disservice to try
and find evidence for it in the imprecision of language (not to
mention the apparently unacknowledged impulse for truth in blinkered
"Darwinists").
It's a puerile argument, along the lines of "You know it's true, why
not just admit it." It's barely worth the breath of an ignorant
fundamentalist, and certainly not the huge waste of verbiage dumped
here.
RLC
Steven L.
Natural human language *is* important, because it's through relatively
simple language and colloquialisms (with all their imprecision) that
scientists and mathematicians can popularize their theories to
non-scientists.
That is the only way I, a non-scientist, was able to learn about stem
cells, the Reimann Hypothesis, and the ToE, among others. In each case,
scientists took the trouble to explain them to us laypersons in our own
colloquial language.
Unfortunately, our natural language reflects what psychologists assert
is humans' built-in biases toward teleology and anthropomorphism. And
so when explaining scientific ideas to non-scientists (which is the only
way the ToE can get popularized), it's important for scientists to watch
their language. It's easy to fall into teleological or
anthromorphological metaphors when explaining things. Scientists may
know those are only metaphors. But laypersons don't. If a scientist
keeps saying "The *purpose* of such-and-such is...." or "The human
intestine *is designed* to carry out the following functions...." or
"Hominids *were selected* for the following traits...", laypersons may
well take away from that, that these things may really have been
designed for a purpose.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
be...@pop.networkusa.net
Paul A. Dernavich wrote:
> Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
> Design theory (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
> ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume,
> are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as
> concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as
> being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent
> design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean
> something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
> anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves.
Not quite; in fact "chaotic" has a technical meaning in science. It
basically
means "dynamic" but with the extra implication that the less-
predicatable
aspects of dynamic systems (such as positive feedback) are in play.
I would assume then that "chaotic self-organizing phenomena" means
exactly what it says.
> For the
> very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than
> that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a
> plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in
> Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is
> not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically
> complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word
> "design" is incorrect. And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of
> words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to
> describe something that can't possibly exist.
>
That would seem to be wrong in any case, since I see no obvious reason
why a "self-organizing phenomenon" would have to be governed by rules.
And if it is not, that would make it "chaotic" even in ordinary
parlance.
More to come later...
Robert Camp
It's a good point, one which too often gets thrown in the same bin
with "lazy usage," as I did above.
> Unfortunately, our natural language reflects what psychologists assert
> is humans' built-in biases toward teleology and anthropomorphism. And
> so when explaining scientific ideas to non-scientists (which is the only
> way the ToE can get popularized), it's important for scientists to watch
> their language. It's easy to fall into teleological or
> anthromorphological metaphors when explaining things. Scientists may
> know those are only metaphors. But laypersons don't. If a scientist
> keeps saying "The *purpose* of such-and-such is...." or "The human
> intestine *is designed* to carry out the following functions...." or
> "Hominids *were selected* for the following traits...", laypersons may
> well take away from that, that these things may really have been
> designed for a purpose.
I wonder. This is a question with which I have struggled. We all use
metaphorical language. Laypersons are familiar with imputations of
purpose to natural phenomena ("That dang ol' sun just wantsa fry the
skin offa me today!" *gag**spit*). Should we really expect that they
will be intellectually waylaid by language about the "design" of some
biological structure or how cells are like little machines? I suppose
the argument to be made for a "Yes" answer to that question is that if
their worldview (religion, whatever) already includes strong
teleological traditions and a perspective on biological origins it
would be hard to expect them to see the obvious metaphor as they would
with casual language.
But I think the much bigger difficulty lies in the intent to deceive
(or willful ignorance) of creationist leaders. I don't see a huge deal
being made out of metaphorical language in other disciplines (ions
"want" to bond, etc.). For some reason it's only in biology that use
of metaphor is somehow an expression of a loftier truth. Maybe it's
just my stubbornness that makes me want to say: "Hey, metaphor is
pedagogically useful, and creationists are rhetorically disingenuous,
so screw being careful with language. If people are bent on
misinterpreting, there's not a lot you can do about it."
Of course that's probably a bit of an overreaction.
RLC
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
wf3h
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
>
> > It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be
> > resolved anytime soon, and why should it? With the recent squabbles
> > in states throughout America, and the Dawkinses and Dembskis trading
> > haymakers with each other, things are only getting interesting.
> > Although I am merely a ringside observer, I am here to blow the
> > whistle on some apparent foul play which I have observed. It is up to
> > you to determine whether any of the participants should be
> > disqualified.
>
> > Let's go to the videotape...
>
> > Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin
> > defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently
> > self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive
> > dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they
> > were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe
> > could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to
> > comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No
> > sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they
> > reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be.
> > Let me give you examples.
>
> > Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
> > ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume,
> > are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as
> > concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as
> > being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent
> > design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean
> > something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
> > anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves.
>
> Ah, another person who has trouble with metaphors. No wonder backspace
> quotes him at length. For anyone who may be unclear, none of these
> phrases has a scientific definition. They're all Pigliucci's own
> metaphorical language, which he is presumably using to try to clarify
> how natural processes can produce something very like the results of
> conscious design.
>
yep. and backspace pretends this is the language of ALL science, that
it has scientific meaning, and that it describes the metaphysical
beliefs of scientists.
totally ridiculous.
backspace
> But I think the much bigger difficulty lies in the intent to deceive
> (or willful ignorance) of creationist leaders. I don't see a huge deal
> being made out of metaphorical language in other disciplines (ions
> "want" to bond, etc.).
The way ions bond can be described mathematically but where is the
maths that shows how inputs into a blob of jelly gets mapped to an
output - clucking chicken ?
backspace
> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html,
>
> Paul A. Dernavich wrote:
> > Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
> > Design theory (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
> > ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume,
> > are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as
> > concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as
> > being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent
> > design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean
> > something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
> > anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves.
>
> Not quite; in fact "chaotic" has a technical meaning in science. It
> basically
> means "dynamic" but with the extra implication that the less-
> predicatable
> aspects of dynamic systems (such as positive feedback) are in play.
> I would assume then that "chaotic self-organizing phenomena" means
> exactly what it says.
Feedback is the mapping of inputs to outputs via a transfer function.
IF the transfer function is non-linear it changes as the input changes
making the output unpredictable. What would you say is the transfer
function of gel that turns into the monarch butterfly? How was meaning
preserved during this process.
In what sense is the word "feedback" being used in your paragraph.
Single words such as "random" , "feedback" could mean many things in
many contexts.
wf3h
chemical kinetics. the arrhenius equation. 2nd law of thermo
where's the law that shows HOW 'god did it' works??
be...@pop.networkusa.net
Paul A. Dernavich wrote:
>
[...]
> Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described
> human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers"
> with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and
> randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random
> "improvements."
I daresay they'd be more effective than what General Motors does
now...
> In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the
> Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians
> and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable
> form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly
> creation." [2] That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist
> cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable
> to whom, and on what basis?
Valuable to humans. Duh.
> Another term which receives heavy usage
> is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard. But in order
> for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or
> standard to fulfill.
Sure. For example, a living thing's purpose is to transmit its genes
to
future generations.
> Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful if it exists.
A valid way of putting it, except it fails to take time into account.
> Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen
> Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself
> to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to
> refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable
> knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a
> higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to
> positive feedback.[3]
I don't know about "stacking the evolutionary deck", but natural
selection
certainly responds to feedback.
[...]
> I believe that when someone wrongly calls the
> evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of
> sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing.
True enough.
> It is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word
> that will work.
No, there's plenty of other words to describe the underlying idea.
They may be lacking in rhetorical force, however.
> It is because there is something brilliant, something
> awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct
> is to want to know who gets credit for it.
And the goal in using phrases like "non-intelligent design" is to show
that
this instinct is wrong.
[...]
> Let me make the point in a more obvious way. Here are two written
> accounts:
>
> A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with
> each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster
> dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into
> its component elements.
>
> B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially
> motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K.
> Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports,
> Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the
> building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According
> to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's
> cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the
> earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.
>
> If asked where these two fictitious excerpts came from, most would say
> that A was from a textbook or scientific journal, and probably
> describes events observed under a microscope or in a laboratory. B
> would be a typical example of newspaper journalism. Most people would
> say that, of course, they are not talking about the same thing. But
> could they be? Well, to the materialist, the answer is certainly
> negative.
Agreed. The point of a handgun is that you don't come into physical
contact with the target; also dead people do not usually dissolve into
their component elements. Instead, they "spontaneously" assemble into
bacteria, maggots, and so on. I say "spontaneously" since these things
are not intelligent, and so their actions must be "spontaneous"
according to
how Dernavich seems to use language.
> Any outrage or emotion felt upon
> reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response,
> but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had
> happened.
Sure. Just because something outrages me doesn't mean it is "wrong".
As a believer in free speech, I do not consider it "wrong" for
Dernavich
to have written this essay; but this does not mean that I am not
outraged
by its thesis.
[...]
> But what about life? Life is an elusive concept that cannot be
> quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent
> book. [4] Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life,
> one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers
> life. Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are
> supplemented with the vision of the mind. No biologist contemptuous
> of metaphysics can claim, if he is consistent, that he has observed
> life, let alone its evolution. We then start to have an aesthetic
> appreciation for the beauty and ingenuity of these life forms, and it
> is not long before we get around to talking about abstract concepts
> such as rights, justice, and equality, and assigning some species -
> namely, us - some kind of moral responsibilities for them, none of
> which can be measured according to scientific methods.
>
> I think it is safely assumed by all parties that, although we have
> some physical and behavioral characteristics in common, humans are
> significantly more intelligent and sophisticated than our mammal
> friends, and possessed of a vastly different consciousness. For
> whatever reason, we are unique enough to make us "special." The
> problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less
> why, this consciousness emerged.
I see no problem here. As far as I am aware, the physical sciences
cannot
explain how fireflies produce light either.
[...]
> We cannot
> acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution,
He seems to have skipped a step in his argument here, having given
no reason why this could not happen.
> The most serious offenders in this category have to
> be the various minds behind the Humanist Manifesto, who roundly reject
> the metaphysical even as they affirm it, by assumption, in their grand
> prescriptions for humanity. This is called talking out of two sides
> of the mouth. Now, biologically speaking, developing this trait would
> be a great way for an organism to gain a tactical advantage in the
> struggle for survival. Unfortunately, it also opens the creature up
> for easy attack in life's intellectual jungles.
So? These intellectual jungles are a relatively recent development,
and we haven't had time to adapt to them yet.
> These contradictory assumptions met each other vividly in the
> theater of mainstream culture last year, during the pop radio
> reign of "Bad Touch," the Bloodhound Gang song. You know
> the song: it was the one with the refrain of "You and me, baby,
> ain't nothing but mammals / So let's do it like they do on the
> Discovery Channel." It was pure Darwinism for the dance floor
> and became an instant dorm room classic, despite (or most
> likely, because of) the fact that it was too explicit for the kitsch
> it aspired to. The party music stopped, however, upon arrival
> of Thornhill and Palmer's The Natural History of Rape, the book that
> investigated whether rape was a genetically determined trait that
> enabled humans to climb the evolutionary ladder.
Uh, no. This book was released in January of 2000, while Bad Touch
topped the charts in May of that year.
> The book's research was as swiftly refuted as The Bell Curve's.
> However, the white-hot center of controversy surrounding this book
> was not the research, but the inferences that might have been made
> from it: the fear that rape could be rationalized, or even accepted, on
> a biological basis.
Not according to the reviews I've just read. They all say the
controversy
is a turf war between evolutionary psychologists and social
scientists.
eg from http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/29/rape/print.html:
| As the latest salvo from the burgeoning "evolutionary psychology"
| movement, the book is a symptom of an increasingly heated border
| war -- the fight over who controls the intellectual territory of
human behavior.
| Traditionally, the study of what people do and why they do it has
been the
| domain of the social sciences -- cultural anthropologists,
sociologists,
| psychologists and political scientists -- but increasingly,
evolutionary
| biologists are claiming that the key to human behavior lies not in
our culture
| and social structures but in our biological makeup. In the case of
"A Natural
| History of Rape," this is more than just a rhetorical battle; our
whole approach
| to rape prevention is potentially at stake.
[...]
>
> 1. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes," Time
> Magazine 154 no. 8, August 13, 1999.
>
> 2. Theodore Schick, Jr., "When Humanists Meet E.T.," Free Inquiry 20
> no.3, Summer 2000, pp. 36-7.
>
> 3. Robert Wright, "The Accidental Creationist," The New Yorker, Dec.
> 30,
> 1999, pp. 56-65.
>
> 4. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science, (Wilmington, DE:
> ISI Books, 2000, p. 97).
>
> 5. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (NY: Image Books, 1990, pp 41-2).
>
> 6. E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," The Atlantic
> Monthly 281 no. 4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.
(I have included these for completeness)
>
> === Response by Richard Carrier ===http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89
Interesting; he seems to have made many of the same objections as I
did...
> "B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same [as A]."
> Incorrect. You have violated the law of excluded middle: A contains B
> as a possible case, but it also contains countless other entirely
> different cases, and therefore A is a genus and B is a species.
But he did miss what I noticed about these.
> This means they are not equivalent and thus do not share all the same
> content any more than "mammal" and "mouse" share the same content. One
> would be ill advised to think that "mammal" means "mouse," for an
> elephant might be around the corner. And one cannot say "I understand
> what a mammal is, therefore I know what an elephant is." He who
> understands A does not understand B, only a fractional part of B, and
> this fact invalidates your use of A and B in your analysis, and in
> fact this error plagues and thus totally destroys the rest of your
> argument about morality and values.
On the other hand, this is a better counterargument, to be honest.
Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula
A butterfly has no meaning and they aren't computers. Silly.
> In what sense is the word "feedback" being used in your paragraph.
> Single words such as "random" , "feedback" could mean many things in
> many contexts.
He said "positive feedback." As in the word feedback is being modified
by the word positive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
You know, there is nothing wrong with lacking linguistic competence
and being ignorant, but there is a a problem with lacking linguistic
competence and being ignorant while insisting that you're right and
that others with more knowledge and pragmatic competence are wrong.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
>
> > It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be
> > resolved anytime soon, and why should it? With the recent squabbles
> > in states throughout America, and the Dawkinses and Dembskis trading
> > haymakers with each other, things are only getting interesting.
> > Although I am merely a ringside observer, I am here to blow the
> > whistle on some apparent foul play which I have observed. It is up to
> > you to determine whether any of the participants should be
> > disqualified.
>
> > Let's go to the videotape...
>
> > Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin
> > defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently
> > self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive
> > dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they
> > were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe
> > could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to
> > comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No
> > sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they
> > reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be.
> > Let me give you examples.
>
> > Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
> > ), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume,
> > are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as
> > concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as
> > being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent
> > design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean
> > something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
> > anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves.
>
> Ah, another person who has trouble with metaphors. No wonder backspace
> quotes him at length. For anyone who may be unclear, none of these
> phrases has a scientific definition. They're all Pigliucci's own
> metaphorical language, which he is presumably using to try to clarify
> how natural processes can produce something very like the results of
> conscious design.
>
> [snip more confusion about metaphors]
>
These comments prove that Atheist-evolutionists like John Harshman *do
understand* that metaphors are used to describe and explain reality.
The inability to understand Biblical metaphors to have the same
purpose and the inability to understand them is now supported to NOT
be an inability but deliberate refusal.
Ray
Robert Camp
Which argument is just another example of your inability to think
clearly, or at all. The observation that such maths don't exist is not
an argument that the development of biological complexity (assuming
I'm deciphering your glossolalia correctly) cannot be demonstrated
mathematically, it is an argument that it has not yet been
demonstrated mathematically.
The latter, as you use it, is an argument from ignorance. I'm guessing
someone with your stupendous linguistic prowess is familiar with that
particular fallacy?
RLC
backspace
See this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb?tvc=1&q=natural+selection+favorable+measured
And the posts by noshellswill who publishes in bio physics journals
but can't tell us his real name or PZ Myers will hunt him down:
-----------
When appropriate, science happily calculates probability distributions
and
considers them respectable predictions. QM treats radioactive decay in
this way, extracting average (decay) energy per-unit-mass per-unit-
time.
Stat Mech also treats classical "ideal gases" in a similar fashion,
relating velocity distributions to the temperature parameter.
I trust you HAVE studied this basic science? I mean, you are
currently attending at least high-school. Eh?
Which one of the words " quantitative prediction " do you NOT
understand?
----------------------
'll grant common meaning up to here. But by refusing to reference a
physical layer, look at the trouble you run into.
> Do you agree that if there is some environmental factor (predators,
> human breeders) that causes one color of moths to breed in greater
> numbers, that the next generation will have a greater percentage
> whatever genetic complement causes that coloraition?
A quantitative speculation, agreed. But if you wish to demonstrate
this speculation ( NOT pejorative, scientists speculate freely ) ,
then
you must (quantitatively) MEASURE the "genetic complement"
percentages
in a way that is independent of measuring breeding success.
How to do this? I'm afraid you must drop-down a level, from genes/
alleles
to DNA base-pair or amino acid sequences. Or perhaps you can
directly measure (quantitate) changes in 3-dim protein structure. You
pick the method, but you do not to pick the level at which
quantitation
is performed.
Then you may compare changes in genetic (heritable) information with
changes in reproductive success.
This next paragraph doesn't so much get you in trouble as admit the
limitations of your process.
> And do you finally agree that if we know the percentages involved, that
> we can predict the changes that are likely to occur over several
> generations due to that environmental factor?
In this thread, Chris Thompson assures me this is perfectly do-
able ...
I checked and he's correct. In physics there are lots of such
recursive
procedures --
*******
I'm ignoring simple curve-fitting by X[k+1) = X(k) + <fdelt>
(k,k-1...)
*******
-- they go by the name of kinematics and are perfectly
respectable. A classic example is position of a moving object
parameterized by time:
D = D0 + V0*t + 0.5*a*t^2
The equation produces true results, widely independent of the
dynamical
physical system "sitting beneath" it. The crucial word is WIDELY. The
quantities V0 & D0 are boundary conditions not derivable from the
equation, while acceleration "a" must be determined beforehand
directly
from the dynamics ( note: dynamics --> forcelaw p.d.e.s ).
Do you see ... that the ( high level ) kinematic equation has
precious
little scientific meaning by itself? That's really important to see,
because it's directly analogous to your use of pop-gen to support
the
scientific stature of biol-evol.
<clip>
-------------------------
ppreciate your response and detailed example. Nice "kinematics". My
critique of "alleles" as a variable still stands ... I've nothing to
defend, or believe. You must demonstrate "alleles" "downward"
quantitative
structure, and may not point at high-level behavioral results to do
this.
Same goalposts. What you're telling me is that you CANNOT do my
requested
calculation : from base-pair changes to population change.
--------------
Continuing my comments:
> Though I don't know, it would not surprise me if a relatively simple
> case like coloration has been described step by step; perhaps it is as
> simple as a change in one protein. But it doesn't matter if it has
> not. By (what I believe to be your) definition of a "real science", no
> science qualifies.
Firstly, if you believe a "... change in one protein..." deserves
the
term SIMPLE then you have never studied, tried to calculate or
measure protein 3-dim structure. It illustrates a limiting and
dangerous frame-of-mind.
Secondly, you're dead wrong about real science.
> Newton, for instance, managed to do quite a lot of excellent work on
> gravity, without the slightest idea about what gravity ultimately *is*
> or what causes it. He did what all scienitists do: recognize
> regularities in nature and describe how they interact.
Science has very modest interest in phrases like:
"... what X ( X=gravity, wavefunction ...) ultimately is ..."
That's coffee-table chatter. Or once every couple-centuries along
comes
Einstein. But every scientist requires a fundamental dynamic, from
which
quantitative predictions can be made and the theory extended. And
measurement method(s) by which those predictions may be tested.
This
duo is the very guts of scientific method. The mathematics
foundation
is NOT an option ... better to say that verbal expression of
foundation
concepts is like a homely first wife, to be exchanged for a younger
model at connivance. But the diffy-Qs are a faithful mistress.
Not only has this dual requirement been wildly successful in
allowing
human control of natural processes, but also provides a means of
keeping
out rif-raff ( Freud comes to mind ...). OKey, string-theory snuck
in,
but it's a long time between new particle accelerators ... %^]
> Mendel invented genetics without ever seeing a gene. AFAIK, population
> genetics works just fine on a level that Mendel would have understood.
I have never debated, nor do I doubt that natural history has many
true
things to tell us.
> Greg Guarino
True, I've talked way too much and said nothing clever. Everyone I
know
who does science does it the way I've described.
-----------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/501f02d8ded94ddd?rnum=191&q=natural+selection+favorable+measured&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fac52c73b1fc53deb%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dnatural%2Bselection%2Bfavorable%2Bmeasured%26#doc_376ab23e119594ad
> Other than noting that no bacteria reproduces in high concentrations
> of streptomycin how was their reproductive potential measured ?
BSpace:
See:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/
Reading these two notes helps to understand the kind of discussions
that appear in this n.g. It was news to me. Evidently there's a hot,
bloody ongoing debate within the biol-evol community about necessary
and
appropriate levels-of-description for biology processes. Call these
two
the Cytosolic-olians and the polypeptid-arillians -- my impression is
the
conflict is more about agenda and social_power than science -- but,
YMMV
so read the articles and find your own conclusions.
Anyrate, looks like "talk.origins" as a social venue belongs to the
former
group C-olians , which explains much smarmy, 19th century kant and
an utter refusal to even confront the requirement for a bio-polymer
level
attack on evolutionary questions. It's a matter of social clan, not a
matter of pushing scientific boundaries.
So don't have-a-cow when your prodding elicits the same, drab
responses.
>> Other than noting that certain individuals contributed more offspring
>> than others how were their successfulness measured ?
> Other than measuring the distance between two points, how do you
> measure the distance between two points?
> Do you honestly think that you are fooling anyone with this pathetic
> nonsense?
> RF
Cheezy paraphrase, RF: Better to try ..." Other than measuring the
distance between two events, how do you measure the displacement
between
two events?"
But, then one is tempted to suggest ... temperature? The
phase_space of each "event" is very large.
nss
-------------
--------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/e78545b114b487ee?rnum=261&q=natural+selection+favorable+measured&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fac52c73b1fc53deb%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dnatural%2Bselection%2Bfavorable%2Bmeasured%26#doc_039cf6188032f9c9
> Can you give an example of a "formal definition" of a scientific term
> as you mean it? For example, who created the term "gravity," what is
> it's definition, and where was it defined?
STM:
Scientific terms are ALWAYS formally defined in-terms-of the equations
by
which quantitative effects may be derived from asserted causes. This
of-course includes probabilistic behavior, but we don't NEED that for
a Newtonian "gravity" example.
G*(ma)*(mb)
Fg = -------------
|(ra) - (rb)|^2
Do you see? "Gravity" is defined by an equation that tells us how-to
calculate a quantitative value. Now, you may still quibble that
"gravitational force" chases-the-tail of "gravity. But Newtons 1st
Law
tells us what to expect quantitatively from any (net) force, in terms
of
measurable behavior.
<sum>F = M*(D2)R/(DT2)
Equating we have the "dynamics" equation:
MA = Gm/r^2 ... which differential equation may be solved for
an
appropriate "position" variable "r" as a function of various
dummy
variables ( time, angle) . See WIKIPEDIA or any Junior-level
classical mechanics text for details.
The crucial point is that the scientific term "gravity" is so defined
as
to produce quantitative predictions. These predictions may be tested
by
measurement, in this case of position as a function of angle or time.
The
variable MASS may be determined independently.
Do you see? Verbal descriptions, explanations, justifications etc are
"external" and (almost) irrelevant to the science. Definitions come
through the predictive equations. It's a stricture on ANY discipline
wishing to call itself a science. And no, your opinion on this matter
really does not count.
> Does your opinion count? If so, why? All I see here is an asssertion
> about what constitutes "true science". But I see no argument for the
> truth of that assertion. There's a hint of a "no true Scotsman" sort of
> claim, and if I point to scientific terms that aren't defined by
> equations, you will probably just tell me that they aren't really
> scientific terms.
> But really, how silly is this? If we believed you, we'd have to suppose
> that there was no science of chemistry before Shrodinger, no scentific
> theory of atoms until Bohr, at a minimum, and so on. Mathematics is a
> tool of science, not its sine qua non.
> Is "mafic" a scientific term? What about "Quercus agrifolia"?
JH:
I expected better ... as no chemist needs be ashamed. Boyles and
Charles
Law predate ES, as does Maxwells kinetic theory. Gibbs too, and many
others ... Let's not forget 19th electro-chemists and spectroscopists
half-of-whom were chemists.
Yep, 18th & 19th Century chemists got quantitative and got molecular
as
fast as they could. What is YOUR problem?
-----------------------------------------------
LTfl...@hotmail.com
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
>
> It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be
> resolved anytime soon, and why should it?
*snip tripe*
The "debate" only exists in fantasyland, as there is NO debate in the
scientific community, where it actually matters.
LT
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html
<snip>
Like you, Deranvich has no evidence that mainstream evolutionary
theory is wrong. Like you, he depends on using words in ways which
other people do no use them, to attempt to score rhetorical points.
Unfortunately for both of you, reality does not go away simply because
you have made yourselves incomprehensible.
He claims "Dawkinses and Dembskis [are] trading haymakers with each
other". They are not; neither has lifted a fist to even threaten each
other.
This is a metaphor, of course, using common language easily understood
by to make a point, to communicate and assertion - and it's not a
literal one. Deranvich is more literate than you, but he is just as
disingenuous, just as frantically handwaving, and just as wrong.
Kermit
Robert Camp
> On Apr 21, 10:50 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:14 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 7:22 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Please tell me you're joking. You don't think any of that was a
response to my point about your argument from ignorance, do you?
In any case, noshellswill had his(her?) own set of delusions (and I
doubt you understood any of them), but it doesn't matter how profusely
you ornament an argument from ignorance with equations and numbers
(see Pitman's ongoing example), it's still a fallacy.
RLC
wf3h
>>
> That's coffee-table chatter. Or once every couple-centuries along
> comes
> Einstein.
interesting he respects einstein, given what einstein said about his
view of god...
and mathematics is deeply ingrained in biology
it's completely absent from creationism. totally missing. creatoinism
has no math at all about anything EXCEPT it's been wrong 100% of the
time in the last 2000 years.
Dana Tweedy
snip
> These comments prove that Atheist-evolutionists like John Harshman *do
> understand* that metaphors are used to describe and explain reality.
It's not the "atheists" or "evolutionists" who have difficulty with
metaphors.
> The inability to understand Biblical metaphors to have the same
> purpose and the inability to understand them is now supported to NOT
> be an inability but deliberate refusal.
The problem is determining what parts of the Bible are metaphor, and which
you think need to be taken literally. Worse, creationists have a problem
understanding what is legend, and what is history.
DJT
backspace
> Please tell me you're joking. You don't think any of that was a
> response to my point about your argument from ignorance, do you?
Or how about his Transition matrix explanation:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a9582738eb994b2b/1ac2fc0c52c491d9#1ac2fc0c52c491d9
TRANSITION MATRIX
>> nss
>> ******
> Welcome back Noss. I see you have gotten a couple new equations. But
> some of us are still waiting for the justification of your assertion
> that in order to know anything about what's happening in a population
> of moths, we have to look at amino acids or DNA base-pair changes.
> Please explain why you think that in this case- the one I described
> earlier- phenotype is not a reliable indicator of genotype. Why is it
> that the predictions we can make using the formulae for natural
> selection are not science, especially given the fact that they are
> quite accurate as long as you have good estimates of the relative
> reproductive success rates of the various phenotypes?
> Thanks.
> Chris
You don't have to do anything, but if you want to do real science,
show me
a transition matrix connecting DNA/pAA sequence and survival
probability.
For any trait. It's a Nobel Prize for the first one ( at least ) so
get to
work.
nss
-----------------
{{{
> JH:
>> I expected better ... as no chemist needs be ashamed. Boyles and Charles
>> Law predate ES, as does Maxwells kinetic theory. Gibbs too, and many
>> others ... Let's not forget 19th electro-chemists and spectroscopists
>> half-of-whom were chemists.
>> Yep, 18th & 19th Century chemists got quantitative and got molecular as
>> fast as they could. What is YOUR problem?
> Sure, various aspects of chemistry had a bit of math in them somewhat
> earlier than Schrodinger. But you dodge the question. How, according to
> you, could there have been any physics of atoms before there was a
> mathematical description? My problem is that your notion that math is
> all there is is ludicrous, as an examination of the history of any
> science will show. Biology is no exception; there's math in biology,
> including evolutionary biology, but that's not all there is. I see you
> have yet to make any attempt to defend your claim. You just pronounce it
> to be true.
JH:
Nope. My $0.05 like yours is worth just that. Rather, I observe
this mathematic behavior as UNIVERSAL among scientists. Of any time
and
of any discipline. The scientists push is always to more fundamental,
integrated and quantitative representations and measurement.
I've never walked into a physics, chem or molecular biology lab where
this
was not true. By refusing to look at physical structures beyond
classification WORDS like "gene", allele" and "trait", many biol-evol
presenters on this n.g. are teaching "science" every bit as bad as ID
or
CS.
nss
>> They were not. This particular bit of argument was purely theoretical
>> and was not a reference to any particular variations. However, unless
>> it's your position that no variations are useful, Darwin's argument must
>> be valid. Is that your position?
> backspace seem to be close to arguing that variations don't even
> exist. he asserts that the idea of 'alleles' is useless. kind of like
> saying that brown eyes are no different than blue eyes.
JH:
Brown and blue (eyes) are ... different color. You know, that
frequency
thing, or if you insist, qualia. OTOH "alleles" is a dummy variable
for
cell_related sets of poly-acids. Big difference, eh, unless you're
playing the 'village Darwinist'?
---------------
Chris:
My best wishes -- hope you're on-the-mend.
Otherwise ... the (cytosolic) 'population genetics' you champion may
have been hot ... in 1920. It looked no farther than the 'alleles'
division of Chromosomes. Stay there alone if you wish. It's not my
business or interest to send you elsewhere.
But bio-science now focuses on the poly-acids. It will stay there
until
the cell_chain vis those polymers is complete , top-to-bottom or
until
some Godel-like wall send them elsewhere.
nss
---------------------
}}}
wf3h
>>
> Nope. My $0.05 like yours is worth just that. Rather, I observe
> this mathematic behavior as UNIVERSAL among scientists. Of any time
> and
> of any discipline. The scientists push is always to more fundamental,
> integrated and quantitative representations and measurement.
>
> I've never walked into a physics, chem or molecular biology lab where
> this
> was not true. By refusing to look at physical structures beyond
> classification WORDS like "gene", allele" and "trait", many biol-evol
> presenters on this n.g. are teaching "science" every bit as bad as ID
> or
> CS.
?? we chemists are taught very thoroughly about the physical
structures of genes, alleles and how they relate to traits.
i realize you, like so many religious fanatics, went to a madrassa and
not a real college, but speak for yourself. your lack of education is
not relevant to science.