Re: News: Hiccups, hernias and flatulence some intelligent design.

Timberwoof wrote:
In article <30b6edd6-2d24-4307-852e-5e01f4cde7b5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill <bil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Evolution has great explanatory value. If one applies the idea of
evolution to observations in nature, then evolution will appear to a
valid explanation. But isn't this assuming the conclusion? One
observes evolution because that's the only interpretation available;
no other possible interpretation is considered. Now I'm not arguing
for or against any particular interpretation, only that there's a kind
of circularity at work.

Alternative interpretations have been considered ... and rejected. But let's see if your logic works for other branches of science.

"Newton's laws of motion have great explanatory value. If one applies the idea of Newton's laws of motion to observations in nature, then Newton's laws of motion will appear to a valid explanation. But isn't this assuming the conclusion? One observes Newton's laws of motion because that's the only interpretation available; no other possible interpretation is considered. Now I'm not arguing for or against any particular interpretation, only that there's a kind of circularity at work."

Indeed, there have been other laws of motion before and since Newton. Specifically, Aristotle's laws of motion, or Gravity 1.0: "Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Objects in motion will come to rest. What goes up must come down. Things in the sky don't follow these rules." Einstein's General Relativity was Gravity 3.0, and the current version is 3.14, just a minor change you don't need to worry about much.

This is why heavy dinners tend to converge on pie.


So some astronomers looked at the center of the galaxy with infrared telescopes and found some stars in wacky elliptical orbits around something they could not see. Something which, by Newton's laws, was very, very heavy. They concluded that there's a black hole at the center of the galaxy ... and ended up sort of confirming the theories they assumed.

Since all alternative explanations are excluded from consideration,
then of course evolution wins by default.This isn't the same thing a
being correct (or not), but simply choosing one assumption over
another.

What point would there have been in the astronomers trying to use Aristotlelian physics as an alternative explanation? We all know that Newton's system works better in most cases and that general Relativity works almost perfectly for the rest.

So let me go back to this paragraph...

On May 20, 12:59 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rather, a system that occurs by a process that appears to preclude
'starting from scratch' or 'borrowing ideas except from within
lineages' or 'teleological thinking' and instead works by kludging
together something that must work at each step from what already
exists by modifying pre-existing systems and their parts ...

is extremely well described by evolution by natural selection. Moreover,

... it does not seem
to *require* an outside intelligent agent when every observable
feature with sufficient evidence can be accounted for by sequential
changes in a pre-existing genome at rates congruent with the time
available.

Why, then, must some other assumption be considered?

More to the point, why must an assumption that doesn't work very well be considered?

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: News: Hiccups, hernias and flatulence some intelligent design.
    ... evolution to observations in nature, then evolution will appear to a ... no other possible interpretation is considered. ... "Newton's laws of motion have great explanatory value. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
    ... interpretation of GR, which has now been falsified in favor ... So in physics, mathematical theories definitely need ... Note that Le Sage gravitation ("pushing gravity") has ... is falsified -- curvature cannot initiate 3-space motion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Maxwells and Faradays formulations of induction
    ... >>I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton ... Classical mechanics or celestial motion reduced to terrestial ... > Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, ... investiagating astronomy and the underlying geometry between observed ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... possible physical interpretation of GR, each having the same basic math? ... basic Keplerian orbital motion! ... Absence of response noted. ... calculators and computers are approximations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... possible physical interpretation of GR, each having the same basic math? ... basic Keplerian orbital motion! ... Absence of response noted. ... calculators and computers are approximations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading