tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post4121497807524284478..comments2023-07-20T09:05:13.400-06:00Comments on Notes From A Transitional Fossil: A Philosophy Dressed Up as ScienceArchaeopteryxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10627784327758008867noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-83191010394439106482007-08-27T21:44:00.000-06:002007-08-27T21:44:00.000-06:00Daddio, there's no arguing with your "logic."Daddio, there's no arguing with your "logic."Archaeopteryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627784327758008867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-23952349480628035822007-08-27T21:03:00.000-06:002007-08-27T21:03:00.000-06:00"We do know how it happened."And you call Christia..."We do know how it happened."<BR/><BR/>And you call Christians irrational?<BR/><BR/>LOL!<BR/><BR/>Macro-evolutiuon=Hypothesis...nothing more.Al-Ozarkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034820391347139672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-33777031878619682202007-08-24T13:38:00.000-06:002007-08-24T13:38:00.000-06:00"Pithy" is my middle name, Kev.Of course we don't ..."Pithy" is my middle name, Kev.<BR/><BR/>Of course we don't know <I>everything</I> that happened. And I fully expect that your grandchildren will be discovering things that make present-day biologists look like idiots (hey, that's the fun of science!). But just like Einstein didn't completely negate what Newton had found, no one is going to find anything that completely negates Darwin (he stated confidently). Sure there'll be adjustments. Maybe somebody <I>will</I> figure out what the first organisms were like, or how they evolved. But we've got the basics down.<BR/><BR/>Your statement is more reasonable. I think I've told you before to quit being reasonable...Archaeopteryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627784327758008867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-86862780074841043832007-08-24T11:46:00.000-06:002007-08-24T11:46:00.000-06:00I was reading once that in 1905, a well-known phys...I was reading once that in 1905, a well-known physicist (Neils Bohr, I believe) stated that within 10 years, everything of significance in physics would have been discovered. This was before either relativity or quantum mechanics. Now, if Mr. Bohr had said in 1905, "we know how the universe works," he would have been utterly wrong. Actually, if anybody said that today, I would wonder about them as well.<BR/><BR/>It may be there are no big surprises in evolutionary biology or genetics. It may be that in 100 years, scientists will look back at 2007 and say "Wow, they really knew their stuff." On the other hand, they might look back and view us as we would view the physicists of 1907.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you know how it happened; and then again, maybe you only you think you do. Perhaps what you ought to say is "Evolutionary biology offers a strong, coherent explanation that is strengthened by ongoing research in biology and other related fields. It is a model which is consistent with known facts, and also opens up new insights." Of course, your version is more pithy.Kevin Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095553926908889102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-83303379069778399882007-08-23T07:31:00.000-06:002007-08-23T07:31:00.000-06:00I was thinking it might be a smile on a dog...but ...I was thinking it might be a smile on a dog...but I didn't figure just how to work that in. What can I say? I'm not aware of too many things.Keifushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287358319899471490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-17025011529710384882007-08-23T06:34:00.000-06:002007-08-23T06:34:00.000-06:00Hey Dogscratcher--that's a good way to put it.Hey Dogscratcher--that's a good way to put it.Archaeopteryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627784327758008867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-85780222334213095802007-08-22T21:53:00.000-06:002007-08-22T21:53:00.000-06:00"eifus, I'm sure you're well aware that Philosophy..."eifus, I'm sure you're well aware that Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box."<BR/><BR/>How bohemian of you.<BR/><BR/>If evolution is "A Philosophy Dressed Up as Science," does that mean ID is an IDeology dressed up as science?dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-71115869098000476922007-08-22T16:29:00.000-06:002007-08-22T16:29:00.000-06:00Keifus, I'm sure you're well aware that Philosophy...Keifus, I'm sure you're well aware that Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box.Archaeopteryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627784327758008867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-43158268244245693472007-08-22T14:02:00.000-06:002007-08-22T14:02:00.000-06:00Thanks, run--I wish I could write half as well as ...Thanks, run--I wish I could write half as well as you.<BR/><BR/>Kol--I disagree. There's no place for this stuff in a world myths class--at least that stuff you mention has some history behind it. ID is just bastardized creationism, without the benefit of the history. But I get what you're saying, and agree--more people should be choking on their coffee. <BR/><BR/>Kev, I don't think it's overstating to say we know what happened. Obviously we don't know every detail--we never will. But we know <I>how</I> things happened. We have the mechanisms down pretty well. I think of it like this: if we find a house in the forest with a plane crashed into the second story, we don't know what happened, but we have a pretty good idea of how the plane got there. Same with evolution. IDers pretend that there are just some things we'll never even be able to put together speculation about. <BR/><BR/>Also, I'd disagree that evolutionary biology is in its infancy. It's older than genetics, and about the same age as psychology. Not as old as medicine or chemistry, certainly, but Origin of Species came out nearly 150 years ago. That's fairly old as sciences go. It's already gone through some big changes--the Modern Synthesis, and now all the advances in Evo-Devo.Archaeopteryxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10627784327758008867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-76856109537750592412007-08-22T11:30:00.000-06:002007-08-22T11:30:00.000-06:00"We do know how it happened."Don't you think that'..."We do know how it happened."<BR/><BR/>Don't you think that's a bit overstated? Evolutionary biology (it seems to me at least) is in its infancy. What can be said to be known is like looking at a globe rather than a roadmap. It doesn't really give the details. Just as one example, it's not known what the first living organism was. It seems pretty important to me to "knowing what happened" to know how it all started.Kevin Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095553926908889102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-47966730460929658552007-08-22T07:33:00.000-06:002007-08-22T07:33:00.000-06:00It took a long time for science to get out of the ...It took a long time for science to get out of the bed it shared with philosophy. I'm not sure it even is today, but natural philosophy is a little different than that buried in abstract thought and tradition. (I mean, c'mon. Can you get a doctor of <I>science</I> degree? I think not.) The progression of empirical thought was as slow as it was interesting. I should read more history. (I'm not making a whole lot of sense.)<BR/><BR/>This Bethell guy is obviously a kook. It's funny how he needs science to "inform" his faith, and also how he needs to call the vast body of countervailing science unempirical. He's bought empiricism without realizing it.Keifushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287358319899471490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-64637259730265187672007-08-22T06:50:00.000-06:002007-08-22T06:50:00.000-06:00Some years back I almost choked on my morning coff...Some years back I almost choked on my morning coffee when I read that there was a movement afoot to put Intelligent Design on the school SCIENCE curriculum. I mean, sure, there's a place for it in World Myths--right up there with Shiva dancing the universe into being.<BR/><BR/>I'm tired of explaining that science is empirically proveable, even if I don't possess the knowledge base to understand those proofs at this moment in time, whereas ID is faith-based and every bit as proveable as the Tooth Fairy or Santa.kolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648985808921944343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6182690994498367646.post-3291798087254087932007-08-22T06:04:00.000-06:002007-08-22T06:04:00.000-06:00Arch: This is terrific stuff. Bethell is not a jou...Arch: This is terrific stuff. Bethell is not a journalist, he's an apologist.rundeephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268692799782942178noreply@blogger.com