Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Meanwhile, in Darwin’s corner, there is now an English prof somewhere who was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household” (along with a growing army of accusers and litigants?)

Political scientist John West’s essay in The Claremont Review of Books, “Dissent of Man,” is now online here:

It’s not often that a book by a professional philosopher attracts the notice—let alone the ire—of the cultural powers-that-be. One can think of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in the 1980s, but other examples are hard to come by. At any rate, Mind & Cosmos is well on its way to becoming a book that can’t be ignored by the thinking public. Thus far, it has been denounced in the Nation and the Huffington Post, dubbed the “most despised science book of 2012” by the London Guardian, defended in the New Republic (where Nagel’s critics were blasted as “Darwinist dittoheads” and a “mob of materialists”), subjected to a feature story in the New York Times, and put on the cover of the Weekly Standard, which depicted Nagel being burned alive, surrounded by a cabal of demonic-looking men in hoods.

The author has attracted special displeasure from the powers-that-be for using Mind and Cosmos to praise intelligent design proponents such as biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. As the New York Times explained, many of Nagel’s fellow academics view him unfavorably “not just for the specifics of his arguments but also for what they see as a dangerous sympathy for intelligent design.” Now there is a revealing comment: academics, typically blasé about everything from justifications of infanticide to pedophilia, have concluded that it is “dangerous” to give a hearing to scholars who think nature displays evidence of intelligent design.

An especially brazen attempt [at Darwin myth-making] is Rebecca Stott’s Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution. Stott’s book purports to tell “the story of the collective discovery of evolution” starting with Aristotle, medieval Islamic writer Al-Jahiz, and Leonardo da Vinci. If it really accomplished that feat, the book would be extraordinary, given that each of those writers believed in the fixity of species and a natural world imbued with purpose.

Though the author herself, a professor of English at East Anglia University, obviously wants to draw a line from Aristotle, et al., to Darwin, she (unlike her book jacket) is frank enough to concede that the thinkers she discusses for the first hundred pages of her book were not in fact evolutionists, Darwinian or otherwise.

Stott highlights what she sees as the oppressive forces of religion squelching heterodox ideas among the valiant, free-thinking proto-evolutionists. For anyone familiar with 19th-century broadsides like Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology, this approach is far from fresh. But writing the book was obviously therapeutic for Stott, who makes clear at the start that she was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household.” More.

Note: Full title of the essay is “Dissent of Man: A review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel and Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution, by Rebecca Stott”

Comments
Wow ok if all you got from what I said before is that "primates existed," then you are hopeless. Also, I was referring to this site as a whole when I said it shows science in a bad light.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Actually the evidence is "primates existed". Building a picture around the evidence isn't the same thing, it is an inference based on a metaphysical belief system. Pointing this out doesn't count as ignoring the evidence. I haven't read this entire thread but I cannot see where the accusations that science is being shown in a bad light is coming from.Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Look Jul, they begged me for some evidence of evolution, I talked them through some of the basics of primate evolution, then they either tried to BS a response or flatout ignored it. It doesnt get any more intellectually dishonest than the people you find on here. Trying to show science in a bad light because you cant handle that your little religion is a load of bullshit is just sad.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
PS: People look at ID the wrong way. Instead of thinking "God is mystery, we reject mystery, therefore we reject god". Compare instead, Human designed systems. Human designed systems see variations upon a theme (e.g cars-station wagons, sports cars, rally cars, utility vehicles etc.), variation over time (e,g differing styles in cars), common ancestors (e.g Model T Ford, Wright Bros Flyre 1, also multiple vehicles for different roles based on a common chassis are/were extremely common, especially during WW2),adaption (e.g merchant ships rebuilt for war), convergent evolution (rocket plane and jet plane), transitional forms (e.g mixed propulsion planes from the 1940s and autogyros which are functionally transitional between helicopters and fix-winged prop-driven planes). There are countless parallels even though different Humans are responsible in different times, different places, used different (but overlapping) knowledge in different ways. So if a single person made it all, even more unity would be expected.Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
AVS, you are very intellectually dishonest. Simply declaring something to be the best explanation does it make it so. The similarities between living things do not support any particular conclusion. Nor does the fact that living things are flexible to some degree. This does not distinguish living things from I suppose it does qualify as "best" if one's criteria is to refuse any worldviews that one finds unpleasant. The minor details (natural selection, sexual selection, new variations in highly similar organisms but without radical innovation etc.) that the atheistic evolutionary worldview claims to explain were already explained by many theistic naturalists before Darwin. Darwin just claimed that these mechanisms can also drive radical innovation and the origin of life itself. It has not done this. Normally, this has to be established before an idea becomes accepted and then it becomes a theory. The athiestic evolutionary worldview hasn't even passed phase 1. You cannot dismiss abiogenesis and call that a different subject. It isn't. It is the foundation for the current mainstream worldview so sweeping it under the rug or shifting the burden elsewhere is simply wrong. Why hasn't it been verified? There isn't even a detailed speculative model let alone an experimental result which is absolutely unacceptable in science. Vague assertions don't count. It is also absolutely unacceptable to dismiss important features as mere details. Science is supposed to love delving into details and leaving no stone unturned. And yet somehow it is acceptable that there is no model, not even a speculative one how exactly organ systems and body plans originated. These are not mere details, these are crucial to your worldview. In forensic science, not every moment needs to be reconstructed but this is an extremely poor analogy. If you can pinpoint the footsteps of a murderer a few minutes before/during/after a crime but can't explain how the criminal reached the scene in the first place, then you have an extremely faulty idea about what happened and how. Atheistic Abiogenesis+Common Descent isn't "the only game in town". Its just the only one some people are willing to play.Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
I believe, that you can believe whatever you like gramps.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
AVS you should hang around here .... we do not indoctrinate .... only enlighten also many here do believe in evolution but not Darwin Kind .... I believe in special creation.Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Thanks guys, that was all I needed to hear. Johnny, you require the remains of every living thing to have ever lived to be arranged in the order that they lived to accept evolution. Psy, you require a human baby to be popped out of a chimp to accept evolution. I assure you both that neither of these things will ever happen, and I really hope you guys are not crime scene investigators or do anything that requires much thinking for that matter. Good day.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
When we look at different types of primates and humans, we look at the presence of nails, independent movement of digits, opposable thumbs/grasping hand, and stereoscopic vision/ depth perception to name a few. The first extinct taxa I’ll talk about is the anthropoids. They had post orbital closures, less sutures in their skulls, and lacked a grooming claw among other things. Next in line is the hominoids, they had large canines and a gap between their canines and incisors along with a pronounced brow ridge and sagittal crest. They also did not have tails and were quadripedal. Hominids are bipedal, had short/broad pelvises and more outward femur angles along with a reduced sagittal crest and the loss of the opposable toe. Fossil hominids, the australopiths and homos, began to increase in cranial capacity, size, became fully bipedal, went from oval birth canal to circular, lost the brow ridge, with a rounder flatter face. As we have discovered these species, we have not only taken note of their anatomical features but also of the places where they have been discovered, showing the migration of early man, as well as the habits of early man such as the use of tools and home bases, fire, etc. This is just a small piece of the record of where primates and humans lived and died ladies and gents.
There, I changed two sentences. I simply removed your bald assertions that evolution was the explanation, and nothing happened to the substance. What we are left with are observations of the fossil record, minus your religious claims.lifepsy
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
AVS @ 52 Dumber has not been eliminated from the gene pool .... in fact is getting dumber .... Maybe Genetic Entropy ? Yes ? or maybe it is time for us to dump our genetic load ? Yes ?Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
AVS btw which cane first... the round head or the oval shaped birth canal. If the oval shaped canal had evolved to accommodate an oval shaped heads then a larger round head would not be able to pass through and unfortunately the "round headed" genes would not have survived birth. Now go and discuss this with you biology professor since he is so well indoctrinated !!!Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Which brings us back to Thomas Nagel's contention that evolutionary biology cannot explain consciousness in the first place:
Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128 New Thoughts on Evolution (1910) Views of Professor Alfred Russel Wallace, O.M., F.R.S. "Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russel Wallace - An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910.
Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, which is a far more powerful theory of science than Darwinism is,,
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)
It is found that consciousness precedes material reality and does not 'emerge' from it
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” (Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13). “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)
So as hopefully you can now see AVS, I need you to enlighten me as to how all this can be reconciled with your atheistic materialism for as far as the scientific 'facts' themselves are concerned I hold your worldview to now be falsified. Music and verse:
Apocalypitca - Nothing Else Matters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
bornagain77
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
No sir, I do not need to wiki much at all thank you. I did some fact-checking when I said that stuff about primate evolution but for the most part everything I say is from what I learned in class. As for the evolution of our intelligence you can google the FOXP2 gene I think it is, there was some interesting stuff I read about that. Also, if you really don't see how increased mental ability would be selected for....well you should have your head checked. I think it is safe to say that being smarter would most definitely be an advantage in just about every situation I can think of. But hey, what do I know?AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
My oh my those are some impressive 'facts' you got there AVS. Guess its an open an shut case that we randomly evolved from some chimp-like creature. But I'm not quite so convinced that it happened the way you imagine it dis even though you sneering attitude and juvenile insults have certainly almost made the scientific case for you.,,, I still have a few questions if you don't mind educating us poor dumb IDiots a little more. If the 'fact' that we randomly evolved from apes is so ironclad then why did the recent pig-chimp hybrid theory of human origins created such a stir among Darwinists?? i.e. Physorg had an article up showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
Of course your piggish behavior towards us would be explained quite well by this pig-chimp theory! :) ,,, Moreover AVS, despite your claim to the contrary, I don't think the fossil record is nearly as strong as you think it is for your position:
Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012 Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,, The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/read_your_refer_1063841.html
as to skull sizes, well where we have the most complete fossil record, that is certainly not another 'fact' in your favor either:
If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
As to the gradual emerging of humanlike traits, well that is another 'fact' that does not materialize for you:
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,, “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202
Moreover AVS, Darwinists can't even explain how a single neuron of the human brain evolved in the first place, much less how an entire brain was reconfigured from a chimp-like brain to produce our unique 'humanness'
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html
bornagain77
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
AVS @ 47 I did listen to what my science HS science teacher said (way back about 1967) .... was not a myth then. Besides my background is in plant sciences. I see you like to Wiki. But we do have way more mental capacity than would be needed to just survive.... and thus I do not see how increased mental ability would have been selected for .... and I am not certain we know if mental capability is an inherited trait. We do know Hitler thought it was and intended to create super humans via selective breeding.Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Do you have a specific problem with what I said or are you just going to make broad, baseless claims Mr psy?AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
AVS,
As we have discovered these species, we have not only taken note of their anatomical features but also of the places where they have been discovered, showing the migration of early man, as well as the habits of early man such as the use of tools and home bases, fire, etc. This is just a small piece of the origin of man pie ladies and gents
Darwinian mysticism in action. Data + the assumption that "Evolution is the explanation no matter what" = Confirmation. It works every time.lifepsy
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Johnny, perhaps if you had listened to a word your bio teachers ever said you would know that the 10% myth of brain usage is nothing more than that...a myth. You should really stop talking now.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Well Johnny, if you look at your head shape, you will see that it is quite circular and if you remember I mentioned how our cranial capacity were increasing. This makes the birth canal shape change and subsequent size increase along with our overall size very important. As for the selection of a rounder flatter and flatter face, that I do not know (I don't know everything sorry). As for cranial capacity, I don't think it is a direct correlation, there's a lot more at work there, but I think it definitely does play a role; more neurons in your brain for memories and the like could never hurt. Thanks JDH I'll take that as a compliment, as I've said I am only just starting my senior year. Yes I do have a lot to learn, yes I am immature here on your website, but most of all I am enjoying very much the fact that I presented a bit of the evidence that your friends here have asked for and what do I get?...Nothing, apparently we still cannot have an intelligent conversation after I provide the evidence you guys ask for...perhaps the lack of intelligence is not on my side of the table? Food for thought.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
And since you bring up cranial capacity, it is known that humans only use about 10% of their capacity. So why would evolution select for larger capacity if we do not use it anyway. Perhaps your biology professor could help you answer these questions.Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
And you forgot to mention Piltdown man .... we know a lot about him alsoJohnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
AVS - I admit, I'm guessing, what are you first or maybe second year grad student in biology. You have a lot to learn. Please humble yourself and stop sounding like an immature brat. Maybe then we can have an intelligent conversation.JDH
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
AVS why would evolution select for circular birth canal over oval shape ? And why would a rounder flatter face be selected for ? And is there a correlation between cranial capacity and intelligence ? We really would like to know why these minor traits would be selected for ?Johnnyfarmer
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Hmm okay, since our friend Jason Bornagain here brought up human origins, lets talk about that. When we look at primate evolution, we look at the presence of nails, independent movement of digits, opposable thumbs/grasping hand, and stereoscopic vision/ depth perception to name a few. The first extinct taxa I'll talk about is the anthropoids. They had post orbital closures, less sutures in their skulls, and lacked a grooming claw among other things. Next in line is the hominoids, they had large canines and a gap between their canines and incisors along with a pronounced brow ridge and sagittal crest. They also did not have tails and were quadripedal. Hominids are bipedal, had short/broad pelvises and more outward femur angles along with a reduced sagittal crest and the loss of the opposable toe. Fossil hominids, the australopiths and homos, began to increase in cranial capacity, size, became fully bipedal, went from oval birth canal to circular, lost the brow ridge, with a rounder flatter face. As we have discovered these species, we have not only taken note of their anatomical features but also of the places where they have been discovered, showing the migration of early man, as well as the habits of early man such as the use of tools and home bases, fire, etc. This is just a small piece of the origin of man pie ladies and gents. Like I said, feel free to educate yourselves.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Some other interesting quotes by Dr Tatterstall on paleontology: "As I said right at the beginning, what we think today depends very largely on what we thought yesterday. If the entire human fossil record were to be discovered tomorrow, and studied by experienced paleontologists who had developed their skills in the absence of preconceptions about human origins, I am pretty sure that (after the inevitable bout of intellectual indigestion) a range of interpretations would emerge that is very different from those on offer now." Tattersall (1995) The Fossil Trail pages 226-227 "When you're out there selling such complicated narratives, normal scientific testability just isn't an issue: how many of your colleagues or others buy your story depends principally on how convincing or forceful a storyteller you are--and on how willing your audience is to believe the kind of thing you are saying" Page 169 So apparently science doesn't matter to evolution, only good storytelling does!sixthbook
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Or, he'll continue to throw insults instead of the evidence we've requested. But this is what we've come to expect from the Darwin faithful. Come now AVS. A free thinking intelligent individual like you must surely be able to provide at least one piece of evidence to support your claims?humbled
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Oh and you cited a curator of the American Museum of Natural History who thinks there is no evidence in the fossil record of hominid skulls showing our evolution? That's strange because I was just in that museum this summer and they have a huge exhibit on human origins. Try telling that to the scientists in the Sackler lab there, let me know how that one goes.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Damn BA77, that's a lot of hurt... :) I think by now, our new padawan has his fingers in his ears chanting "evolution is true, evolution is true, because... because.... Well because the scientists say so".humbled
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Oh wow Bornagain, you sent me to the video of the guy who pokes a hole in a cell and then says "well it didn't reassemble, there must be a god." Wow, you are even worse off than I thought. You just can't fix stupid.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
This site is about critical thinking? Ha, good one. I don't see much thinking going on at all here. Let's take Mr. bornagain who just posted a lovely mile long essay to me. Most of it is copy and pasted stuff i've seen him post numerous times. Mr. Bornagain, the first thing you did in trying to talk about evolution was bring up abiogenesis. Try to stay on topic here please or I'm not even going to bother reading your bullshit. You want evidence for evolution? Why don't you ask Jerry? He must have read every biology book by now.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply