Re: ID leader (Behe) admits that astrology would be a scientifictheory if ID is
- From: "david ford" <dford3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Oct 2005 11:46:12 -0700
John Harshman wrote:
> david ford wrote:
> > VBM wrote:
> >
> >>Here is a short article about Behe on the stand:
> >>
> >> "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
> >>criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his
> >>claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
> >>Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh
> >>University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory"
> >>was so broad it would also include astrology.
> >
> >
> > "Behe... admitted his definition of 'theory' was so broad it would also
> > include astrology"
> > How about: natural selection, [Rosen]"ether, phlogiston, and noxious
> > vapors"?
> >
> > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > Donn Rosen was/is with the Department of Ichthyology at New York City's
> > The American Museum of Natural History. In a 1978 _Systematic Zoology_
> > book review, Rosen announced his intention to "consider what seems to
> > me
> > the demise of" the theory of natural selection. He continued by saying
> > the theory "is so entrenched in the fabric of evolutionary biology that
> > its axiomatic nature has been virtually overlooked." By "axiomatic
> > nature," Rosen refers to the ability of "Darwinian selection theory" to
> > "explain everything, and therefore, nothing."
> >
> > I personally find uninteresting Rosen's claim that the theory of
> > natural
> > selection is tautological. I do, however, find interesting his
> > agreeing
> > with me that, in his words, "natural selection theory fails to explain
> > the origin of evolutionary novelties." Rosen also thinks the phrase
> > "'natural selection'" ought be "stripped from our technical
> > vocabulary,"
> > and the theory "sen[t]... off to join the ether, phlogiston, and
> > noxious
> > vapors."
>
> Why should we care what Rosen thought, or what you think about what
> Rosen thought?
We shouldn't. Nor "should we care what" Gould "thought."
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
1972 and 1977 Gould and Eldredge on punk-eek and the fossil record
1977, 1980, and 1982 Gould the saltationist
1988 A. Lima-de-Faria on the phlogiston-like contradictory nature of
"selection"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net
1985 Gould: "we professionals are adrift ourselves in many areas";
Gould's "Not Necessarily a Wing"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411221033.48b47b7a%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on phylogeny trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990126225603.790598A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1977 G&E on diagrams and the uninitiated
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960722001816.872M%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1980 Gould on the tips and nodes of trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970901005523.14415B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1979 Gould & Lewontin on Darwin's sainthood
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980525231720.5351B-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1982 Gould on Frazetta's snakes and Long's rodents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311711.7a718a17%40posting.google.com
Gould: Goldschmidt was one of the premier geneticists of our century
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, 1982 Saunders & Ho
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131235540.126906A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Gould notes that there is continuing
controversy about _how_ blindwatchmaking can occur
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000645.26045D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Gould on hogwash in evolutionary theory
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Margulis; Gould on paedomorphosis
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970805010133.12918J-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
> [snip]
>
> > "It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or
> > effect on pupils in government-funded US schools."
> > Is teaching secular religions there OK?
>
> No, but as far as I know, nobody is proposing to do that. What do you
> know about this that I don't?
What Lyon said:
From
the courts on the secular religion of secular humanism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127528146.999596.314660%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Educator Harold C. Lyon^5
described a course he gave in "affective education" which he claimed
resulted in his students functioning as missionaries. He said:
"The intangible product of the course is fifteen
humanistically enlightened individuals who
are now either teaching their own
humanistically oriented classes or working as
missionaries to influence others to deal with
feelings in the classroom and in curriculum
development."
> [snip]
>
> > "Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's
> > definition of a hypothesis"
> >
> > ID as a metaphysical research program
> > http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> >
> > Popper's 1978 article, page 346, a paragraph:
> > The theory of natural selection may be so
> > formulated that it is far from tautological. In this
> > case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not
> > strictly universally true. There seem to be
> > exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and
> > considering the random character of the variations
> > on which natural selection operates, the occurrence
> > of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all
> > phenomena of evolution are explained by natural
> > selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a
> > challenging research programme to show how far
> > natural selection can possibly be held responsible
> > for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural
> > programme
>
> Why should we care what Popper said? (Though in fact I have no idea what
> point, if any, you were trying to make here.)
>
> [snip]
We shouldn't. Nor "should we care what" Williams "said."
Williams on sex and 'evolution'
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129126616.881002.204260%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
1966 George C. Williams: "Whenever I believe that an effect is
produced as the function of an adaptation perfected by natural
selection to serve that function, I will use terms appropriate to human
artifice and conscious design." "There are convincing analogies
between bird wings and airship wings, between bridge suspensions and
skeletal suspensions, between the vascularization of a leaf and the
water supply of a city."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-31tnfkF3e6alfU2%40individual.net
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ID leader (Behe) admits that astrology would be a scientifictheoryif ID is
- From: John Harshman
- Re: ID leader (Behe) admits that astrology would be a scientifictheoryif ID is
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Bible creation vs. evolutionary creation [theistic and etc]
- Next by Date: Re: What is the purpose of Rayy Martinez posting?
- Previous by thread: Re: ID leader (Behe) admits that astrology would be a scientifictheory if ID is
- Next by thread: Re: ID leader (Behe) admits that astrology would be a scientifictheoryif ID is
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
