I was at the talk. It was packed with professional philosophers and graduate students in philosophy, most of whom sided with Dennett. I wrote live comments on the debate/session. I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga’s position over Dennett’s and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn’t publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.
Friends, if you can identify me, I request that you keep my identity secret. I am sharing my thoughts as a service to the philosophical community and all those who have an interest in such debates. But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues. This is not to say that all secular analytic philosophers are this way; they most certainly are not. But enough of them are that I cannot risk being known publicly.
“But I prefer not to suffer at the hands of my ardently secular colleagues”
The soft tyranny of the enlightened with the au couteur of Liberal Fascism. Pass the fava beans.
How is this “intolerant”? Both sides presented their arguments, and people were able to reach their own conclusions based on the merits of those arguments. Merely complaining that the secularists didn’t treat the religous arguments with the “reverence” that the religous would have liked is no more “intolerant” than pointing out the ludicrous ravings or beliefs of any other religion (whether it’s believing that women are chattel that can be beaten at whim, or that the world is balanced on the back of an elephant, balanced on the back of a turtle, balanced on the back of another turtle, etc.)
On Dennet, “It is clear that this is a man with serious character defects.”
Wow these philosophers really get into it. Seems political correctness has infected the philosopical realm as well. I’m no philosopher (far from it…sigh), but I liked Plantinga myself. Only read snippets, so far (long artical) and will try more throught the weekend.
“How is this “intolerant”?”
Reread the post. Anyone who wants to climb the tenure track can’t dare step outside secular received wisdom or else they get tanked by their colleagues.
SDC
From the author of the actical, who was present at the debate;
‘Plantinga focused on the argument, and Dennett engaged in ridicule.’
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”
ALBERT CAMUS
I would suggest that philosophers who acknowledge, accomodate, and respect the spiritual aspects of human nature are more likely to rationalize a philosophy of life worth living. On the other hand, rationalizing life as not being worth living is very easily applied to the lives of others and takes us down a dark path.
Calling Ed Feser. Ed Feser, clean up on Aisle 3:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/02/tone-deaf.html
Liberal fascism begets intellectual fascism… no surprise here.
Debates about how and why we are here, are quite boring. After all, there is absolutely no way to prove either point for certain. Just like it is nearly impossible to win the argument over which political system is better, capitalism or socialism.
I know that there is ample proof that Capitalism outclasses socialism by a mile, but still it remains a belief system … just like the evolution and creation belief systems. Even though evolution outclasses creationism by a mile, it is impossible to prove that evolution is not simply god’s way of doing things.
The most interesting aspect of this debate is how repressed one side or the other may be, depending on which side holds the most political power at any given point in history and how stupid and cruel is the behavior of the dominant side. … BOTH SIDES in their turn.
We should all listen to our mamas advice that we never discuss religion in polite company. And we should all simply live and let live. I have noted that the side less likely to go with the ‘live let live’ scenario is the religious side. Of THAT, we have ample proof.
Fascism arises not only from the conviction that one is correct, but that it is morally required (not just acceptable, but required) to compel recognition of that correctness from those who disagree. It’s a potentially toxic strain of any variety of philosophical advocacy, secular or religious.
The deadly paradox arises when you define simply being prevented from doing this yourself as an example of someone else doing it to you.
“Anyone who wants to climb the tenure track can’t dare step outside secular received wisdom or else they get tanked by their colleagues.”
And if you have a convincing argument, backed by logic and/or evidence, then your argument will speak for itself, the same as for any science. Simply saying that “My god says X” isn’t an argument worthy of any response OTHER than ridicule, no matter whether your chosen religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo, or any other nonsense that likes to dress itself up as “fact”.
“‘Plantinga focused on the argument, and Dennett engaged in ridicule.'”
This seems to be a common cry among those who find themselves on the losing side of any argument, especially those who are espousing ridiculous arguments.
John:
One quick point.
Evolution, in some form, happened AFTER creation.
By definition, religion most certainly is compatible with science.
Both search for the truth. There are many abstract concepts, which I will not enumerate, which cannot be weighed or measured.
That does not mean what cannot be physically weighed or measured does not exist.
Reading through the notes on debate has confirmed my own experience … that those who deny the wisdom of those who searched for spiritual truth, articulated it and made sure it withstood the test of time … only have personal insults and put-downs as defences.
Unless I missed it, nobody has found a credible ‘missing link’ that has shown human beings evolved from another species.
To my mind, it’s an incomplete explanation, since whenever the question of ‘so, how did it all start?’ can never be adequately addressed by secular thought.
It seems to me that any train of thought that seeks answers, such as “why am I here?” and “where/how did it all begin?” require realization that knowledge requires some application of faith, though not necessarily religious.
I have always found it interesting that primitive societies, sought to explain their world using specific reference to the existence to an omnipotent, metaphysical being governed by neither time nor space (ie-pre-universe).
Rather sophisticated way for a caveman to view the world, eh?
Either way, this is an interesting, enlightening and mind expanding discussion which should never be governed by correctness, either way.
Why is the debate set up in an Either-Or framework?
I don’t accept either view; that is, as an atheist, I don’t accept the perspective that there is a metaphysical Agential Force of Creation. However, I don’t accept the neoDarwinian view of creation and evolution as due to mechanical acts of random mutation and post hoc ‘fitness’.
In my view, neither have any viable explanatory power. The metaphysical Agent is outside of validation and therefore, most certainly doesn’t ‘conflict with science’ because it has nothing to do with science. The neoDarwinian mechanical explanations are weak, for randomness is an extremely weak method of adaptation.
I think that all matter is interconnected and operates as a massive informational network, a ‘complex adaptive network’. It is self-organized, it senses adaptive requirements and comes up, itself, with the new morphological or ‘genetic’ format.
As such, this CAS (complex adaptive system) operates as Reason, as Mind. It isn’t random, it isn’t mechanical (as is neoDarwinism), it is informationally intelligent. However, unlike theism, it has no intentionality or agenda other than to enable mass to exist..and mass/matter can only exist when it is organized as discrete forms.
Sheer nonsense. He’s playing the victim card in order to attract sympathy, just like the supposed “victims” in Stein’s abortion of a film “Expelled”. In reality, he’s free to voice his views all he likes; the worst that’ll happen is his coleauges may lose some respect for him. That’s the same risk we all run, every time we decide to speak.
“The neoDarwinian mechanical explanations are weak, for randomness is an extremely weak method of adaptation.”
Apparently you have no clue what Evolutionary Theory actually SAYS. Have you read any books on the cubject, or are you just repeating talking points?
Random mutation isn’t an adaptive mechanism – random mutation is random mutation. Natural selection is the adaptive mechanism – and one which is extremely effective. We’ve already adapted the concept to come up with simulation software which can “evolve” computer-made mechanisms that are more efficient than anything human beings have come up with. In the future you’ll see evolution-algorythms being used more and more to aid in the development of new technologies.
Having pondered this question for many years, I am always surprised by the vitriol and certitude, not to mention the raw anger that one side presents in what is essentially, at least for me at least, a semantic argument. If “Science” were so cut and dried, why all the hysterics? I suspect there is a lot of guilt and fear involved, which perhaps is a good thing. It seems that for many [would/should/could] know – it – alls the question “What if, what if! Despite my incredible rationality there really is a God and I am damned to burn eternally in the fires of hell!!??”
“‘Plantinga focused on the argument, and Dennett engaged in ridicule.'”
SDC – “This seems to be a common cry among those who find themselves on the losing side of any argument, especially those who are espousing ridiculous arguments.”
Alex – “In reality, he’s free to voice his views all he likes; the worst that’ll happen is his coleauges may lose some respect for him.”
And I suppose the “global warming deniers” have no problem getting funding and publishing their results either…
Gentlemen – It is truly touching to see such ardent faith in the “inherent goodness of man”. Perhaps you ought to test your hypothesis when your own career is on the line.
In my experience, the lad/lass has due cause to be cautious.
Ah, I was wondering when ET would step in to proselytize for her impersonal god, the one whose scaling of mount improbable occurs by virtue of self-definition. A provocative position, but hardly unique – it has been the domain of speculative fiction writers for the better part of a century. At least, however, it avoids the infantilism of Dennett’s position by actually raising the central issues. An epistemologically critical step…pity logic takes a tumble down the stairs thereafter.
From whence comes the systems interactions that permit meaningful non-volitional scribing in the book of life?
alex – actually, I DO have a clue about evolutionary dynamics…and have written, and published in peer-reviewed biological journals on the subject. And co-written articles with botanists and biologists. Oh, and I’m also often asked to review submissions for biological journals. Anything else?
And no, I don’t think that Natural Selection is an adaptive mechanism. After all, it’s a post hoc process that has to work on ‘what is provided’ and if only random adaptations are provided, none of which are functional, then, NS can go whistle in the wind. The species would die out by the time a random type was offered up to the Goddess of Natural Selection. I suggest it is you who is just spouting textbook dogma.
And you are misinformed about the freedom to voice one’s opinion on campus. Until one is tenured, it’s a fragile existence. The hiring and tenure committees aren’t interested in upcoming new theorists who might unseat their own esteem,, they aren’t interested in people with vibrant and dissenting views; they want sycophants.
Then, even when tenured, just try and get research funds for a different perspective. It’s almost impossible. The review committees are Old Guard, dedicated to preserving their own prestige and extremely hostile to different perspectives.
Nothing to do with ‘losing respect’; your sentence suggests that the Old Guard are, by definition, correct. Maybe they aren’t; maybe they ought to be more scientific and admit the necessity of falsifiability.
“And I suppose the “global warming deniers” have no problem getting funding and publishing their results either…”
Well if they’re working in philosophy, then no, they have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if they’re working on climate research, they’re probably gong to have some difficulty, depending on how far their views deviate from the evidence.
If your views relate to your work, then it all depends on how well-fouded they are. If you beleive that CO2 doesn’t cause warming at all, then you’re a fool, and are unlikely to find any work in climate research. On the other hand, if you beleive that CO2 does cause warming but that the quantity of human-produced CO2 probably is not high enough to drastically affect the global climate, you’ll face some personal opposition but you won’t have much trouble finding work. And if you can put together a properly researched and well supported paper which clearly demonstrates the validity of your beliefs, you will have no problem AT ALL getting it published. Scientific journals love controversy – as long as your methodology meets the usual criteria they’ll be more than happy to to publish your work reguardless of how controvertial it may be.
It’s the same in any field. If you fix cars for a living and you have a sincere belief that duct-tape is superior to bolts for securing metal components, you’re going to have a bit of trouble finding anyone to pay you. But if you just disagree about some torque specifications, you don’t need to voice your concerns on an anonymous forum in order to protect your identity. And if your objections can be demonstrated to be correct, there’s a good chance that the standard maintenance procedures will be modified to comply with your suggestion.
The other question is whether your beliefs have anything to do with your job. I have a co-worker who strongly beleives that 9/11 was carried out by the bush administration, and that Jews are going to take over the world. I think he’s a complete moron, but his views have nothing to do with the work he does, and he is a perfectly competent employee. It’d be not only completely immoral but absolutely idiotic for our bosses to discriminate against him based on those views. Granted, nobody wants to associate with a lunatic outside of working hours, and he’s a bit of a loner at work also, but his personal beleifs haven’t harmed his career in the slghtest. Likewise, if as a biologist you beleive that some magic man started the evolutionary process, your bosses would have to be immoral fools in order to discriminate against you because of those beliefs.
I am a conservative with both a big and little “C”. I am an avid reader of SDA. I feel at home here on SDA but am I expected to read this so-called philosophy bullshit? I await for some snob to reply.
“And no, I don’t think that Natural Selection is an adaptive mechanism”
And you’re wrong.
“After all, it’s a post hoc process”
Every adaptive process is post hoc. How can you adapt to something before it happens?
“The species would die out by the time a random type was offered up to the Goddess of Natural Selection.”
And most do. The vast majority of species which have existed are now extinct. Evolution doesn’t gaurantee survivability, it’s only a mechanism for adaptation. Like any mechanism, it is prone to failure – all the more so because it involves no intelligence.
Seriously, HAVE you read anything about evolution? All of your objections so far are completely sophomoric. They have no relevance, either to your attemt to disprove natural selection, nor to your attempt to prove the exitence of some gaian hive-mind.
“I suggest it is you who is just spouting textbook dogma.”
Anyone who uses the phrase “textbook dogma” immediately loses all right to be taken seriously. If you have THAT little respect for the body of scientific work which came before you, then you have no place in rational discussion. And if you truly are a biologist, you should know better.
“Unless I missed it, nobody has found a credible ‘missing link’ that has shown human beings evolved from another species.”
But that is exactly what current genetics shows; modern great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23 pairs. Naturally enough, the question is “Well, what happened to that extra pair?” The answer is, two of those pairs from our earlier primate ancestors fused into one pair, and that mutation proved to have such beneficial results that we ended up being the dominant lifeform on this planet. This can be proven by the existence of genetic markers at the end of each chromosome called “telomeres”, which is what allows those strands of DNA to copy themselves during reproduction. In the case of humans, we also have a “centromere”, which occurs in the middle of chromosome 2, and that centromere is an artifact of the original mutation, where 2 distinct chromosomes joined end-to-end AND to each other, leaving a disabled telomere/centromere in the middle of the chromosome that is missing in the great apes. This is why we share so much of our genetic makeup with other primates, as humbling as that may be for some people.
Why is the story of the doctor who cried “Bacteria!” ignored by folks like Alex and SDC? To remind them, a doctor was ridiculed for daring to suggest that ulcers could be caused by bacteria…until he infected HIMSELF with bacteria, got an ulcer and then cured himself…which then “completely changed the way the world views” (how often do we hear THAT statement) the formation of ulcers.
The establishment of doctors (i.e. the “consensus”) actively ridiculed (i.e. they demonstrated “how far (the doctor’s) views deviate from the evidence”) the person who held the opposing viewpoint. Unable to find funding for test subjects for his theory, he tested his theory on himself.
Guess who was right and who was wrong? The establishment / consensus was wrong and the “denier” was correct…yet the SDC’s and Alex’s of the world will continue to extol the infallability of the “consensus”.
Quoting someone else…though mankind is ABLE to learn from mistakes of others, mankind is apparently disinclined from doing so. Alex and SDC should gain wisdom and admit that there is a real possibility that the “heretics” may actually be correct.
As Kate often titles her posts, the opposite of diversity is… university. This person can’t even identify himself without serious threat to his/her career and tenure as a philosopher. This, of course, is neo(new)-liberal “tolerance”, the greatest PC oxymoron of our time.
Eeyore, your “bacteria” example is proof of the soundness of the scientific method; if he was not able to prove that bacteria are responsible for certain diseases, that theory would have justifiably been thrown onto the dung-heap of history. As I said earlier, if you have a convincing argument, backed by logic and/or evidence, then your argument will speak for itself, the same as for any science. However, if your argument simply boils down to “My god says X”, then why should anyone take you seriously, whether you’re talking about the requirement to beat your wife with a stick no thicker than the width of your thumb, the requirement to eat (or not eat, as the case may be) certain foods, or any OTHER religous mumbo-jumbo?
“Why is the story of the doctor who cried ‘Bacteria!’ ignored by folks like Alex and SDC? To remind them, a doctor was ridiculed for daring to suggest that ulcers could be caused by bacteria…until he infected HIMSELF with bacteria, got an ulcer and then cured himself”
That story is completely ignored by us because it’s a story. It never happened. What actually happened bairs no resemblance to the folk-tale which you just told. The REAL sequence of events went something like this:
1. Doctor comes up with hypothesis.
2. Some doctors express skepticism, others begin researching his claims.
3. Research shows correlation. More research is conducted.
4. Studies confirm a positive link between bacteria and ulcers. Research of effective cures begins.
5. Research produces positive results. After intensive clinical trials, methods of fighting ulcer-inducing bacteria are approved for human use.
Which is a bit more complex and structured than “….DUUUHHH … DIS DUDE INFECTED HIMSELF AND ALL DA DOCTORS R DUMB!!11!”.
“This person can’t even identify himself without serious threat to his/her career and tenure as a philosopher. This, of course, is neo(new)-liberal ‘tolerance’, the greatest PC oxymoron of our time.”
Naw, it’s just a symptom of the Christian persecution-complex. These people don’t seem to be happy unless they can invent some shadowy conspiracy that’s trying to oppress them. I’m guessing it’s their attempt to be more jesus-like.
“Naw, it’s just a symptom of the Christian persecution-complex. These people don’t seem to be happy unless they can invent some shadowy conspiracy that’s trying to oppress them.”
Oppress? No. But there is a concerted and active effort in today’s society to undermine, eradicate and push back against many social values espoused by the traditionally conservative and religious, and the claim that there is no such movement should be taken with a grain of salt — especially if it’s coming from someone on the side doing the pushing.
Nor is it shadowy or conspiratorial; it’s open and multicentralized, which makes it no less real. What people object to is the hypocritical use of tactics that should supposedly be beneath people confident in the claims of their truth – denial of funding, termination of jobs, blacklisting of position, etc. These tactics were rightly decried when they were used as tools of religious exclusion, and they should be equally decried as tools of ideological exclusion. (Outlawed, no — if the right of free association means you don’t want to associate with those who disagree, that should be respected — but decried as hypocritical and damaging to your truth claim, yes.)
“But there is a concerted and active effort in today’s society to undermine, eradicate and push back against many social values espoused by the traditionally conservative and religious”
Such as sexism, racism, misogeny, slavery, witch-burning, blind faith, and religious persecution? Certainly. I won’t deny it – there’s deffinitely a concerted effort to undermine those values.
“denial of funding, termination of jobs, blacklisting of position, etc”
You didn’t actually take Ben Stein seriously, did you?
When I see such tactics being employed, I most certainly will oppose them whole-heartedly. However, first you’ll have to show some examples of it happening, instead of just misrepresenting cases where no persecution took place.
alex – your statement that the phrase ‘textbook dogma’ is scientifically unacceptable is absolute nonsense. Textbooks DO spout dogma and these must be challenged.
As for Natural Selection as a post hoc system of, essentially, preferential attachment or proximate cause, it is not a system of adaptation because it only operates on ‘given morphologies’ but doesn’t develop new morphologies. It is a system that strengthens and privileges an adaptation. But what originates this new morphology? It certainly isn’t randomness.
I am presuming you’ve never heard of complex adaptive networks, of anticipatory processes, of information dynamics -all of which play a vital role in developing new adaptive morphologies and species – and which come into play BEFORE the after-the-fact process of natural selection. There’s a great deal of research and publications in these fields.
And no, most species haven’t become extinct due to ‘natural selection’ but to extreme environmental phases (Gould).
You don’t seem to be involved in these areas and I can only assume took an undergrad biology course and think ‘that’s the truth’. It isn’t.
And stop the pompous pontificating.
eeyore – you are exactly right. Dissent from the normative ‘scientific opinion’ is vital. A theory isn’t scientific if it can’t be challenged.
Alex, your naive, undergrad belief that someone comes up with a new hypothesis and it is gradually, via testing, accepted as the norm, is..well, it’s naive and undergrad. The establishment, who are in power in the research areas, can inhibit and prevent new research in the area. They do this via their control over funding, hiring, tenure, promotions.
SDC – I admire your belief in reason and logic; I certainly agree with that. But, in the real world, reason and logic aren’t always privileged and it can take time and many failures – and good people who don’t get hired, who don’t get research funding – before reason triumphs.
Alex – “depending on how far their views deviate from the evidence”?
Begs the question, does it not?
You certainly have a very …dogmatic…view of how science (PBUI) is conducted, and your historic perspective is very … tidy.
AH HAH! A secular heretic!
Assemble the PC Stasi/Gestapo/KGB intellect police. Anyone knows that non-secular theists should be crushed. Non-conformity in a democracy is a sin.
Become part of the Borg you will be assimilated.
Some people are so ideologically invested in their views, that they are unwilling to properly investigate other points of view.
Standard practice is to ‘straw man’ other points of view, as if somehow conceding one point militates against the entirety of their own view.
An intellectual prejudice usually begets narrow mindedness, necessitating inevitable conflict.
But being PC automatically forswears looking at the world other than from their own lenses. They are too lazy to engage in swapping ideological reference frames to adequately think out their positions.
But of course that would take intellectual humility which seems to be in sparse supply these days. We are however swamped with arrogance.
As one of my atheist profs once mentioned; “Why should I care about other people?” The simple result of that proposition are islands of self interest and ultimately a broken society.
Look around and you will see a broken society replete with financial, intellectual, moral and spiritual decay. How’s that proposition working out?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von
Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
From the report:
“Dennett has revealed a deep wickedness in his character. I will never take him seriously as a philosopher again.”
In a way, this doesn’t surprise me. I have until now only heard the name of Dennett, and have never read him or heard him speak. He is one of the famous, and one would suppose, intelligent atheist philosophers of this day. In all that I have ever read or heard of Richard Dawkins, I find myself similarly disappointed after hearing of a great reputation. He seems to make weak arguments, and even to contradict himself.
One thing that does give me a bit of hope is that Dennett is recorded as having laughed, even perhaps smiled. Should we put a bounty out to see if it is possible to get a photo of Christopher Hitchens smiling?
Why are these people always so angry?
“Textbooks DO spout dogma and these must be challenged.”
If by dogma you mean “established theories”, then fine. And they certainly do need to be challanged. But the language of your criticism is designed to spark ignorant ridicule, not scientific research. You don’t get to challange established science by proposing mystical a “world-mind”, and you don’t get to disprove evolutionary theory by misrepresenting what it states. That’s not how we do science.
“As for Natural Selection as a post hoc system of, essentially, preferential attachment or proximate cause, it is not a system of adaptation because it only operates on ‘given morphologies’ but doesn’t develop new morphologies.”
Of course it doesn’t. New morphologies appear naturally – that’s an obsrved phenomenon. Random mutation is not an adaptive mechanism. Natural selection provides the guidance mechanism by selecting for mutations which allow the organism to survive long enough to pass on those changes to it’s offspring. Ergo natural selection is the adaptive proceess – random evolution just provides the raw material.
Animal husbandry provides a good comparison – when we breed a species for a given trait, new mutations appear naturally. Human selection replaces natural selection, and eliminates the traits we don’t want while selecting for the traits we desire. The process is the same, only the selection criteria and the speed of change are different.
“It is a system that strengthens and privileges an adaptation. But what originates this new morphology? It certainly isn’t randomness.”
No, it’s a magical super-mind which infuses all life. Either that or it’s a pink unicorn in a purple dress. Call me when you find the evidence to show which one of those hypothesis is true.
“And stop the pompous pontificating.”
It’s hard to avoid, considering I’m dealing with someone who confuses ignorance with evidence. Your argument basically boils down to “I can’t imagine how random mutation and natural selection could possibly account for evolution, therefore it must be magic”. If you think that’s a valid argument, then I have every right to be pompous.
“The establishment, who are in power in the research areas, can inhibit and prevent new research in the area”
Stephen Jones? Is that you?
Sorry, but your bizzare conspiracy theory mindest precludes us having a rational discussion on this topic. Everyone rejecting your ideas is not evidence of a conspiracy – it’s simply a result of your inability to make a coherent argument, or present any evidence. Every lunatic thinks that “the establishment” is out to stop him in order to hide “the truth”. I’m just sorry that medical science has not progresed far enough yet for us to be able to cure such silly delusions.
On the topic of “Philosophical Tolerance”:
– A Christîan, by definition, cannot accept that a Muslim might be right. Likewise vice versa.
– A scientist, by definition, must always challenge & test his/her theories and adjust/change as needed.
This is the great divide between the religion and science (or for that matter religion & atheism, since, should there actually be any evidence for a god, the atheists would be first ones to convert).
alex – you’ve swallowed neodarwinism without thinking about it.
Random mutation is an inefficient, energy-wasteful strategy of proving adaptive strategies. Since it is uninformed and essentially ignorant, the majority of its offerings are a waste of time and energy. By the time a ‘right number’ comes up, the species would be long extinct. That’s why more and more biologists are rejecting it as a viable answer for both evolution and adaptation. You aren’t in the field and don’t know this.
So, stop repeating what you learned in your single undergrad course.
No, animal husbandry is completely different, for the desired attribute is not a random offering but already exists. What plant and animal domestication does is that it moves a Set of attributes, which already exist, into a ‘preferential domain’. It selectively breeds this Set within this domain and closely controls the environmental domain, reducing the need for any new adaptations. This has nothing random about it. Isolating a set of attributes from contact with other species, controlling the environment – all of these reduce the need for the Set to come up with new adaptations.
Animal husbandry, plant domestication is an INFORMED process – and those of us working on research in the field of evolution and adaptation, consider that both processes operate naturally – and they operate via informational networks. As I said, you ought to look into research on complex adaptive systems, self-organization and complex networks. You don’t know anything about these areas.
The research in these is in physics, chemistry and biology. You don’t know these fields and therefore are ignorantly calling it ‘magic’. No, Alex, it’s real science and there’s a lot of work being done.
So far, your only rebuttals are just to state your opinions. You obviously have no experience in the field of biology. And no experience in the political minefield of academic positions and funding of academic research. We who know these areas, assure you that your naive suppositions are quite immature and wrong.
Johan:
ET has articulated the scientific findings, as best we know it and I defer to his superior knowledge on these matters.
There are also human beings who make it their life’s work to answer philosophical questions which still exist despite anybody’s ability to physically weigh or measure them.
Both attempt to find the ultimate truth and quite frankly, there has been no further insight into secular philosophy since the works of philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle.
Religion, at least my religion, seeks to teach man’s relationship with God and man’s relationship with other men.
By definition, there’s no aspect of superiority for the former as applied with relationships to the latter.
There are clear distinctions in the example you give in approaches between Christianity and Islam in the instance of emulating the actions of the prophet.
In the New Testament, Christ clearly rejects organizing armed force to gain an upper hand over those humans whose ideas differ, since subjugating the earth’s kingdoms was not his purpose of his physical presence in this world.
Therefore, I reject your implied premise that Christianity is a philosphy that needs to prove its superiority through comparisons. It stands up quite well on its own, thank you very much.
Christians are quite happy to pursue their own inner peace. Both their example and the test of time have proven it to be a difficult yet admirable path.
I embrace what both religion and science have to offer, since both are searches for different types of truths.
And, like knowing more languages, the more types of knowlege a person embraces, the less ignorant he becomes.
“Random mutation is an inefficient, energy-wasteful strategy of proving adaptive strategies. Since it is uninformed and essentially ignorant, the majority of its offerings are a waste of time and energy.”
Yep!
“By the time a ‘right number’ comes up, the species would be long extinct.”
Nope!
“That’s why more and more biologists are rejecting it as a viable answer for both evolution and adaptation.”
Yeah, like, FIVE, at least!
“You aren’t in the field and don’t know this.”
Ohhh, an argument from authority! Well, congratulations, you win!
“So far, your only rebuttals are just to state your opinions”
Pot, this is kettle. Send locstat, over.
Actually, even that’s not fair, since it puts you on he same level as me. Realistically, YOU are the one voicing unsourced opinions, whereas I am simply explaining a well accepted scientific theory.
Any time you want to stop speaking out your ass, feel free to provide some evidence for your little cult-of-gaia religion. Until then, I’m out.
Alex you do realize that “established theories” remain theories because they can not be proven as “fact” don’t you? Some of the greatest tragedies in human history have occurred because of “established theories”.
It is funny reading Alex and SDC argue about what tenure and the attitude of professors are like with two tenured professors (ET…retired, I believe…and Tenebris). Too funny!
Keep digging, boys!
joe
“”””Alex you do realize that “established theories” remain theories because they can not be proven as “fact” don’t you?””””
that’s the beauty of science, it keeps looking for the rite answer, and knows it isn’t found with a closed mind that follows unsubstantiated dogma!!
…and as for the claim that my “Bacteria!” doctor story didn’t happen, please see the following link:
michigandaily.com/content/australians-win-nobel-prize-bacteria-research
Selective quotes:
– Two Australians won the Nobel Prize in medicine yesterday for a discovery that defied decades of medical dogma and revolutionized the treatment of ulcers
–
Sorry, continuing quotes:
– Marshall, 54, and Warren, 68, discovered the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and uncovered its role in causing ulcers and stomach inflammation. The prize, with its $1.3 million check, gives the ultimate validation to an idea that initially drew skepticism and derision.
– The Australians’ bacterial theory of ulcers was “very much against prevailing knowledge and dogma,”
– To make his case, Marshall even deliberately infected himself by swallowing a culture of H. pylori.
Alex = uninformed.
QED.
Eeyore:
I believe Alex now has the intellectual ulcer known as “hubris”.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von
Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Actually GYM, the funny part is that ‘science’ will never find the answers because ‘science’ can’t quantify, measure or observe the answers mankind seeks. As for fixed dogma I might suggest that your misplaced faith in science is far more dogmatic than any world view I profess. You see I actually take people’s observations and test them to see if they fit into my world view and if not then how can I adjust my world view to accommodate said observations. However I don’t fall all over myself trying to accept every theory as truth either. When there are opposing theories I choose which one to believe based on my own experience. Which is why I reject the theory of the purposeless existence of our material universe. I also reject accidental brilliant design. Just as I reject non intelligent information. You know the theory that DNA can blindly impart the information required to form each and every species and individual in said species. Now if you want to believe that your great grandpappy was a rock, well you go right ahead. I’m sure you will find enough ‘science’ to ‘prove’ your point of view to yourself. I prefer to believe that mankind is here to serve a higher purpose, but then again that is simply my choice isn’t it?
WRT the author’s request to stay anonymous, I feel that is probably the take home part of this whole thing. The guy feels its unsafe to argue one side of this debate. As in, his job and his family will suffer for it.
Once upon a time I went to a medical school in New York state. As y’all know I feel pretty strongly about gun control, and these opinions were formed during my time at that school. One of the things I discovered was that when faced with -incontrovertible- evidence that their beloved social theory is wrong, many liberals will be moved to find a way to hurt you. They do it covertly, through political back channels and friend networks because at base they are cowardly, viscious rodents. You never know who did it, but one day you show up for school and find this knife sticking out of your back.
And that is why I became The Phantom. Taking flack at school is fun, because at base you are paying them, and there’s nothing they can actually do to you. But out in The World, you could find your license in jeopardy. Perhaps your freedom, depending how far the rodents go to fit you up.
Liberals are dirty fighters. Liberal academics are the dirtiest back-shooters of them all. Ivory tower my @ss, more like a tower of frozen.
Incidentally Eeyore is 100% accurate, the guys who discovered H.Pylori causes ulcers were practically driven out of the profession before they proved they were right.
This would be an interesting thread for intelligent people, if not for the ramblings of resident a-hole Alex.
Hey, Alex me son, do you truly believe that university campuses, unlike all other human assemblies (including, I suppose nunneries) are fragrant gardens inhabited exclusively by sweet, tolerant individuals who would never piss all over a colleague with whom they disagree or who they might perceive to be a threat? Bah. Humbug.
Eeyore, if you can point to a single instance of me even MENTIONING either “tenure” or the “attitude of professors” on this page, I will gladly eat my computer with relish (or whatever other condiment 😉 you may desire). You can continue to that “X is true because an invisible man in the sky told you so”, but that certainly doesn’t make X true, no more when you say it than when Jim Jones or the Ayatollah Khomeini says it. As I said above, the doctor that proved the causal effects of pylorii bacteria on ulcers is a perfect example of the scientific method at work; he PROVED his theory, through experiment, reason, and logic, and if anyone doesn’t believe that theory, they’re more than free to run their own experiments and offer a competing theory. Now, when someone asks for evidence to back up the existence of (for example) a “god”, no one here can offer anything of the sort, except to sneer the equivalent of “Heathen. Kuffar. Heretic.” or the like. For my part, the genetic evidence I’ve already explained above is convincing enough for me to accept it as proof, but if you want to offer an alternative explanation that has an equal weight of evidence behind it, please, be my guest.