R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/25/2017 5:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:39:15 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2017 5:02 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:30:24 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 2:42 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/17 5:15 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In spite of theories, fossil discoveries, just-so-stories
>>>>>>> how the giraffes long neck evolved is still an unsolved
>>>>>>> mystery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just 400 years ago, almost everything was still a mystery -- why
>>>>>> leaves
>>>>>> change color, why the sky is blue, where dew comes from, how various
>>>>>> rocks form, how the comma was invented, etc. Then there was a
>>>>>> change in
>>>>>> intellectual attitude, at least in some parts of the world, and
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to answer questions like that became not merely acceptable but
>>>>>> honorable. And so many of those questions got answered that
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>> mysteries stand out to R. Dean. That is a success story for
>>>>>> science. A
>>>>>> great success. Thank you, R. Dean, for emphasizing just how much
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> science has given us than religion has.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you bring religion into this discussion. It has no place and I
>>>>> never argue for religion.
>>>>
>>>> Mark detests religion in pretty much the same way as you clearly
>>>> detest the Theory of Evolution.
>>>>
>>> Then he must not. I don't detest evolution, I just disagree with
>>> the gradualism advocated by Darwin etc.
>>
>> I said earlier that as far as I can see, you can tell us nothing
>> whatsoever about the intelligent designer; it might be God but then
>> again it might not; basically, people are free to make up their own
>> mind about the nature of the intelligent designer, not on any
>> evidential basis, simply on whatever they would like the designer to
>> be.
>>
> Had you been reading my stuff, you would realize that my position is;
> that while there is evidence of design in the universe and life, but
> there is absolutely no direct empirical evidence pointing to the
> identity of the designer. One may believe the designer is Zeus, Ra, the
> god of the bible or some other god, this would be strictly a matter of
> belief and faith not evidence.
>>
>> You made no effort to challenge that and, despite several requests
>> from me and others, you have given no explanation as to why you prefer
>> a vague, undefined explanation against one based on real evidence.
>> Your continuing failure to do so makes it reasonable to assume that
>> your rejection of the Theory of Evolution is based on emotion rather
>> than any form of logic.
>>
> I see evolution as the alternative evidence of what is observed. I
> go back to Darwin and Paley. Where Paley observed nature and saw
> his god's hand in design and purpose as seen in living organisms:
> Darwin who was very familiar with Paley's works, _in_my_view_ took
> an irascible attitude towards Paley.
Underlining it only emphasizes that this is just "shit I made up". It
has no basis in the extensive notes and correspondence of Darwin, and
does not align with the timeline of his work. If anything, Darwin was
irritated about the fact that some people would focus on perceived
religious implications of his work - it was one of the reasons why he
delayed publication, to be on the one hand certain that every detail was
sound if a public backlash came, and also out of concern for his rather
pious wife.
I also note that in some other posts, you accuse people of "attacking
the messenger" and not engaging with the content, but ascribed motives.
Maybe you should heed your own advice, especially since your ideas about
Darwin's motives are confabulated out of thin cloth?
As a consequence he saw Paley's
> explanation as a challenge which caused him to become obsessed with
> finding an
ore shot R Dean made up as he can;t cope with the content of Darwin's
arguments and the evidence with other words
alternative and "godless" explanation for what Paley observed.
> Apparently, the militant
yah, I head bootcamp is really tough, but it's made up for by the time
spend on the shooting range.
>atheist Richard Dawkins took up Darwin's case,
> he wrote, the "Blind Watchmaker" an obvious 'take off" of Paley's
> watchmaker.
> "To Dawkins, the blind force of natural selection is the basis for the
> apparent design” around us that appears to cry out “for an explanation”
> (the blind watchmaker, 1988, p. ix)
>
> And I recognize this same antagonism in how Darwinian view the Paley's
> god in the intelligent Design movement today.
"recognize" = "mde up without a scintilla of evidence"
I see evolution today as
> an alternative to actual design in nature.
>
> Certainly, Francis Crick recognized evidence of design, however, his
> a piori commitment dictated his response to what biologist see.
>
> He wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
> was not designed, but rather evolved." He further 'clarifies' his point
> "It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play
> a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
> case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure
> out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus
> evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines
> of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is
> all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is
> already very well understood".
>>
>
darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.com/2013/11/biologists-must-constantly-keep-in-mind.html
>
>>
> Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
> having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple
> things that do not tempt us to invoke design
>>
>
dbanach.com/dawkins1.htm
>
>>
> So, it's clear that there is an a piori consideration which overrides
> observation.
No it isn't, that's just more things you made up, and not supported by
the quotes you give above.
They are a simple reminder of the need for methodological rigorous in
the light of human failings - nothing more remarkable than reminding a
novice spear fisher that the fish is not quite where it seems to be, but
due to an optical illusion isn't.
We are a tool using species, and evolved to reason about other people's
intention and state of mind. These remarkable achievements came with a
cost - we now see intent where there isn't. This is why people across
cultures and ages swear at inanimate objects when they don't work/hurt
them (hammer on finger, broken down car), or why across cultures we
think flooding or lightning can be placated by offerings or why all
cultures anthropomorphize animals.
This evolutionary trait also found it's way into our language, where
terms often carry teleological or intentional connotations where there
aren't any - e.g. talking about "force" or "work" in physics, even
though we know that neither violence nor anything lie human labouring is
involved.
The quotes are a simple reminder of that fact and tell you that if you
want to show design, you need to apply the same methodological rigor as
with all theories and test it, because initial impressions, due to the
way our cognition and language evolved, can lead you astray otherwise.
If of course the tests were to work out, that would be another story
This comes down to - the question: how can Crick
> and Dawkins know that what they see is not real desugn?
By rigorously testing the assumption, as you do with all scientific
theories. You ask what else you would expect to find, and what you must
not find if your hypotheses were true, and then you check.
Without this
> overwhelming devotion to evolution, would anyone, not devoted to
> Darwin's theory not see this as real and intelligent design?
Possibly, juts as without the devotion to physics, we would still think
the earth is flat (it sure looks as if, in most places), the sun
circles the earth (it sire looks like is) and Zeus is behind lightening
(it sure sounds and feels frightening enough) Some of us are willing to
learn, and accept that appearances can be deceptive the easy explanation
might be wrong, others, sadly, are not.
>