The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
I don't know why Fred has failed to cite one of the most prominent proponents of his views, Ann Coulter. As a favor for Fred I'll post some of her recent words and perhaps the blinders will drop from your eyes and you, Carey, will start to see the wisdom in Fred's (and Ann's) worldview.
On July 27 Ann Coulter talked about her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, published by Crown Forum. The book proposed that liberalism was a godless religion with a belief system in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition. In making her case, Ms. Coulter wrote that liberalism has its own sacraments (abortion), its own clergy (public school teachers), and its own creation myth (evolution). Ms. Coulter gave her thoughts on conservative and liberal ideals and answered questions from members of the audience of women at Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute held at the National Press Club. She also responded to questions from the audience and signed copies of her book after the event. In a recent online issue of The New Republic, Ezra Klein noted this interaction between a member of the audience and Ann Coulter. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler in analyzing Klein's report, wrote this: Quote:
Quote:
Margaret |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
This would be hilarious, if it wasn't so depressing. But still, I laughed.
Last edited by Carey N; August 17th, 2006 at 09:53 PM.. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
1) To characterize pre-Cambrian life as "not much" is very strange . . . the origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous (this is where you should really have directed your critique; too late now, though), and how about the evolution of photosynthesis, eukaryota, and multicellularity? Invertebrates and early chordates also arrived tens of millions of years before the Cambrian. 2) There is no doubt that a lot happened in a relatively short time period in the Cambrian, but 'relatively short' is an important phrase. We're talking about ~40 million years, here. Also, our knowledge of the Cambrian is largely restricted to the Burgess Shale fossils, which represent only a thin 'slice' of time and give the false impression that the origin of new phyla was "all-of-the-sudden". Quote:
[Nothing Much] - - -> [Cambrian Explosion] - - - [Voila!!] - - -> [Humans] I don't even know where to start with this one. Just consult a biology textbook and another resource on hominid evolution. In previous posts, you have implied that biologists have it all wrong, that they are delusional about what 'the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life', that they are a bunch of self-important, myopic people. I ask for some enlightenment, and you respond by describing the work of paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. But wait . . . didn't you say that they don't know what they're talking about? Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; August 19th, 2006 at 01:51 AM.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
And I’m inclined to agree that the “origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous.†And you may have a point in that that is where I “should really have directed [my] critiqueâ€â€”so if you want to start a new thread (or continue this one) explaining how your natural selection explains the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria during that 4 billion years, go for it. But I suspect that you’ll not be furnishing much in the way of theories/ explanations/ evidence that will provide the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity. Nevertheless, still, go for it. If nothing else, perhaps you’ll see better the current shortcomings in, as Mayr calls it, your “philosophy of biology.†Nonetheless, however you cut it, the evolution from single cell creatures to sapient beings in a little over ½ billion years via, primarily, “random mutation†and “natural section†(and yes, I know, there’s the other incidentals you’ve mentioned like your drift, migration, recombination) is, to my way of thinking, well, not nearly as convincing as say the explanation of gravity by Einstein’s general relativity theory. Quote:
I’d say that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like “evolutionâ€â€”or natural selection for that matter—being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation; and maybe also avoid making arrogant assumptions and decrees like Mr. Selfish Gene Dawkins’s, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [blah, blah, blah].â€But Carey says that "No one with all his marbles thinks that higher intelligence (or any other adaptation) is the result of pure (or mostly) chance," but then adds that, "things might turn out very differently (e.g. if the earth's orbit were such that the end-Cretaceous asteroid didn't hit us . . .)"???? Whatever. Last edited by Fred H.; August 20th, 2006 at 09:22 AM.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Are you qualified to compare general relativity and natural selection? Granted, general relativity is superb, but do you even know what it is, aside from the verbal descriptions you get from Penrose? Do you know how to do multivariate calculus, ODE and PDE's? Differential geometry? Topology? Do you know population genetics, quantitative genetics, or Fisher's fundamental theorem? The Price equation? Hamilton's rule? Game theory? Somehow, I doubt it. If you aren't intimately familiar with the mathematics of both physics and evolution, in addition to the vast wealth of empirical data that they both enlighten, then you can't comment that one is 'better' than the other. So, put a plug in it. Quote:
To say that intelligence or any adaptation is the result of pure or mostly chance is to say that the features in question spontaneously popped into existence . . . obviously, that is false. The point Gould makes in his exposition is that if the history of life were re-run, then different evolutionary trajectories may have transpired. Historical contingency is an important feature of any phylogeny, but without natural selection, there would be no adaptive evolution in the first place. The chance events involved in the history of life are irrelevant without reference to the evolutionary process, and are therefore secondary to it. Last edited by Carey N; August 20th, 2006 at 03:28 PM.. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Fair enough. But don’t be too hard on yourself and your fellow biologists. Even physicists don’t know everything. For example, what physicists do know, at least based on the current science and evidence, is that the universe “began,†apparently from a singularity, 14 billion years ago, having absurdly low entropy (especially when one considers the huge entropy in the singularity of black holes), after which the universe EVOLVED to what we see today. (Ever notice how physicists typically don’t to invoke “selection†in explaining how it is that our galaxy/solar system/planet evolved?—of course they don’t have to b/c they have superb theories like gravity to explain things.) But nothing in physics today can explain how/why entropy is/was so absurdly low. And of course one of the results of that EVOLUTION of the universe is our planet; and, as you know, again based on the current science and evidence, it appears that life “began†about 4 billion years ago here on Earth, and EVOLVED to what we see today—but let’s face it Carey, the Darwinians really haven’t explained all that much regarding the “beginning†and evolution of life, except perhaps for the obvious that life does indeed evolve, and that selection pressures from the environment certainly seem to have some impact on that evolution (as well as do things like drift, migration, recombination). So yes Carey, indeed, undoubtedly, life, like the universe itself, has a beginning, and evolves. And I remain convinced that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know, what they can actually explain, and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/ assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like evolution/natural selection being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation. Have a nice day, Fred. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Wait . . . I explained why you aren't qualified to argue about the relative merits of physics and biology. I guess I was right, as you just repeated your stock low entropy post rather than addressing anything I had written.
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; August 21st, 2006 at 02:54 AM.. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Fred H.; August 21st, 2006 at 09:38 AM.. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Quote:
And, as I’ve opined b/f, where one stands on these issues seems to depend on how one sees the big picture. Some of us sees things as Roger Penrose—the eminently qualified Oxford mathematician and physicist, who recently also wrote The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 2005, “the most complete mathematical explanation of the universe yet publishedâ€â€”sees things: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." While the rest see things primarily as being random and/or “effectively randomâ€; or perhaps blindly, mindlessly, algorithmically deterministic (essentially effectively random). Really Carey, please consider buying Penrose’s book (and I know you’re probably already overloaded with stuff to read/consider)—it is undoubtedly the best book on physics and the best mathematical explanation of the universe ever written. All the best, Fred Last edited by Fred H.; August 21st, 2006 at 12:20 PM.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Note on adhominem
I will address some other points in a fothcoming post (which, I agree, should wrap things up), but just wanted to jot down a quick note on your ad hominem accusation.
The statement you put forward was, in essence, that the theory of physics (gravitation, in particular) is 'superb', while the theory of natural selection is 'half-assed'. You didn't cite anyone about this, or present any kind of particular argument; you just wrote it, and that was that. Thus, the only way to judge your arguement was to assess whether or not your experience would suggest expertise in both areas (physics and evolution) - and enough expertise for us to take your word for it. My conclusion was that we cannot do so (I did give you a chance to claim that you know the relevant math, though). Last edited by Carey N; August 21st, 2006 at 07:15 PM.. |
|
|