Dr Rick

Understanding evolution is necessary if one wants to completely understand the life sciences. Without evolution, how else can one simultaneously understand, explain, predict, and verify the similarities and diversities of life on this planet, the fossil record, antibiotic resistance, "junk" DNA, and mitochondria? Evolution can, but ID and creation cannot.

Rick

Motorcycle Mama

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MOJO-JOJO:
[QB]

Sorry MoJo - MoJo but I couldn't capture the relevant quote.

Quickly on my way out the door. The rebuttal to Hempel's arguments would be mainly that they reflect a philosophy of science (positivism I believe) that is not longer accepted. That aside Hempel offers a model of explanation which can be used as a nmemontic (sp?) device. When such is done evolution is seen as that which is explained, not what which explains.
Motorcycle Mama

gravitybow

Motorcycle Mama: Here's a quick primer on UBB code. Click on the "reply with quote" symbol on my post. Do this right now.

Now you are on the "Post A Reply" page. Look at the bracketed "Quote,/Quote" tags at the very beginning and very end of my post. Notice the "QB,/QB" tags nested within the quote tags. That is the format. You can use just the quote tags without the bold if you like, but you must use tags in pairs: 1) a beginning and 2)an ending with the forward slash mark in front.

Look to the left this box. See the "UBB Code is enabled" that is underlined? Click it. A separate page pops up explaining UBB tags. That should bring you up to speed.

Look at the "Instant UBB Code" in the blue banner below this box. You can click on any button to quickly insert the code into this box. Paste your text between the tags or into the pop-up box. As long as you don't hit "Add Reply", feel free to play with each of the buttons to see how they handle code. With QUOTE and BOLD I find typing them in to be more convenient.

MOJO-JOJO

Okay Mo-Ma, so I'm finally getting that you believe god is the first cause in all of "creation". We now know that you believe in god, which is fine....I'm not going to attack your belief, been-there-done-it, and that this god set everything in motion, only to interact every now and then when he (she?) saw fit. Lots of christians would take you to task on this and consider you a "heathen", but that is a separate topic.

I'm very familiar with all of the creationist arguments since I studied them at length during my "christian years" teaching sunday school and creationist theories and apologetics.

As with many other ex-creationists here, I spent many moons reading the arguments, debates and essays. I finally had to admit to myself that the legitimate evidence sided with the non-theistic view of the world. It was very difficult indeed to sever the theistic umbilical cord, but I could no longer lie to myself.

Like you, I used to believe that God made Man (and WOman). But now it is very obvious to me that Man made God. Given Mans' supersticious nature and sociological needs....it was inevitable.

I view it as nothing more than a holy aspiration and longing that we have to deal with our guilts and failings. We prop up a straw man to idolize and worship, and we fellowship together in our christian country clubs (churches), giving up our tithes, telling each other how worthless we are, hugging each other in laughter or tears, consoling each other, calling each others' bad behaviour to the carpet, and giving ourselves over to a higher, invisible being that no one can prove exists. Hey...it's VERY comfy, I miss it, believe me. But I believe it's a delusion and a diversion from seeking the REAL truth.

I could go back to it, but only if other "believers" could accept that it is all created by us to benefit one another. Personally, I like the teachings of people like Bishop John Shelby Spong and former nun Karen Armstrong. They've given up the supernatural aspects of faith, and feel that the important thing is to develop the "qualities" of Christ and a god-like character; eg, charity, compassion, honesty, and love for your fellow mankind. The fundaMENTAList thing, however, is just a ridiculous, made-up religion and set of traditions.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

Clutch

Mo-Ma, I agree that any theory of evolution has components. You are correct that these have not been detailed on this thread.

Why should they have been? I've explained what this particular thread has been about. It's been more about honesty in debate and professional in teaching; how, exactly, does focussing on this demonstrates one's grasp of evolutionary theory to be misguided?

Finally, I am looking (fondly) at the Hempel book right now. Nothing in it undermines the observation that sciteach is rehearsing a foolish equivocation with his claim that evolution is "just a theory". But that observation is what prompted you to reference Hempel. To what (contextually relevant) end?

Ergaster

[quote]Originally posted by Motorcycle Mama:
<strong>
Checked out the essay. It's very similar to things I've read many times. If you would like specific comments I have two. First, natural selection seems inadequate to do little more that perform minor adjustments to populations. If you want to read more on the inadequacies of natural selection read Gould and Lewontin "The spandrels of San Marcos." Also it was Gould who criticized Darwinian just-so stories.[/q]</strong>

Urk. I believe you have badly misunderstood Gould and Lewontin: in this essay they are NOT taking issue with natural selection or showing up its "inadequacies", as you put it. They are criticising what Gould calls "The Adaptationist Program" and those who promote it, which is an approach that attempts to assign an adaptive value to *every* *possible* feature an organism might have. That is, proponents of the "adaptationist program" try to show that every organismal feature and behaviour is a result of adaptation to something. This effort gives rise to what Gould also calls "just-so stories", which are basically attempts to maintain scenarios of adaptation around features that simply may not be the result of direct adaptive selection. IOW, Gould criticized ADAPTATIONIST just-so stories, NOT "Darwinian". You should try to discover the distinction.

Also, if you were at all familiar with Gould's body of work, you would know that he did not deny the power and centrality of natural selection in evolution; in fact, he affirmed it many times.

Just FYI: it is highly unlikely that many evolutionists today are strict Darwinians in the sense that they believe that natural selection is the ONLY evolutionary mechanism. It clearly is not, but as far as I know it is still regarded as the most important mechanism. I for one am in full agreement with Gould vis-a-vis the adaptationist program: it is an erroneous position to take because features clearly can arise and become fixed for non-adaptive and/or random reasons. Furthermore, almost any adequately-trained evolutionary biologist understands the constraints on natural selection that exist (bauplan, or developmental, for eg., which is why organisms so often resemble Rube Goldberg machines: natural selection can only work with what is already there, and cannot create structures or functions de novo). This, however, does not make natural selection "inadequate" in any way.

I noticed you referred to a book co-authored by Dan Brooks earlier; I find this interesting because I was taught a course on evolution by Brooks and I know that he does not deny the importance and centrality of natural selection. Perhaps you have misunderstood him, too.

I also notice that you did not answer my earlier questions about whether the statement "Evolution is ONLY a theory" is an accurate one--why or why not. Let me add another one: SJ Gould has stated several times in his writings that natural selection is the only really creative evolutionary mechanism--do you agree or disagree with him?

Well, I agree that there are certainly a variety of creationist positions that one could take, but how is that relevant to the patent scientific incompetency of someone trying to teach a biology class? That remains the central issue with sciteach (despite the various diversions and asides). What he believes when he's alone in the shower is a different thread, IMHO.

lpetrich

This argument is totally absurd, for several reasons.

By that definition, science has been pursued by lots of people who had never heard of Jesus Christ, like many Greek "philosophers". In fact, some of those seemed almost proud of the inutility of their studies.

Also, in its earlier centuries, much of Christianity had had a hostility toward the physical world, with many saints and monks etc. priding themselves on how filthy they were. One early-Christian sect, Gnosticism, maintained that the physical world had been created by a wicked being, Yaldabaoth (or Ialdabaoth). The orthodox view, however, was something like it having become corrupt as a result of Original Sin, which was not much different in practice.

Happy Wonderer

BZZZZT! Can you spot the error here? It is not a small one. Hint: it applies to what you call "pre-Christian." Before attempting to discover "why" a culture performed scientific inquiry, you might first attempt to determine "when" they did so.

Also, to defend your thesis you would have to explain why Eratosthenes bothered to determine the size of the Earth in 330 B.C.

HW

Albion

...then you have to come up with a new definition of what's being done by the large number of theists using the scientific method to study the natural world because they're interested in how God's creation works.

I thought science was defined by the method it used, not by the underlying philosophy of its practitioners.

Bubba

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I find it interesting that after accepting evolutionary theory midlife ( I was 35 when I fully accpted it...I'm 37 now) I'm now also wily interested in biology for the first time. Probably because so much more makes sense. I'm livid at the thought of lots of other people going half their life without appreciating what we know about the natural world...

Bubba