Does the Idea of “Autopoeitic” Include Self Organization; If So How?

_{Barry Arrington

November 17, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In another post Mung points out this interesting quote to Kantian Naturalist (an atheist): “That crude matter should have originally formed itself according to mechanical laws, that life should have sprung from the nature of what is lifeless, that matter should have been able to dispose itself into the form of a self-maintaining purposiveness – that [is] contradictory to reason.” Immanuel Kant

Kantian Naturalist replies:

[Recently] I read “Bio-agency and the problem of action” by J. C. Skewes & C. A. Hooker (Biology and Philosophy 24 (3):283-300, 2009). I won’t get into all the details right now; suffice it to say that the way they set up the problem in what I find to be a deeply compelling fashion. Namely, the Aristotelian-Kantian notion that organisms are centers of their own causal activity is not compatible with linear effective causation — what you might call a “domino” theory of causation. So, what they propose to do is reject the domino theory of causation. Put otherwise, they reject mechanism. In its place they argue that dynamical systems theory can explain how autopoeitic systems arise. Anyway, that’s why I agree with Kant.

“Autopoeitic” is from the Greek“self” and “creation,” and literally that which creates itself. The term was coined by biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. From Wikipedia:

A canonical example of an autopoietic system is the biological cell. The eukaryotic cell, for example, is made of various biochemical components such as nucleic acids and proteins, and is organized into bounded structures such as the cell nucleus, various organelles, a cell membrane and cytoskeleton. These structures, based on an external flow of molecules and energy, produce the components which, in turn, continue to maintain the organized bounded structure that gives rise to these components (not unlike a wave propagating through a medium).

Here’s the interesting part of the Wiki article for our purposes today: “Though others have often used the term as a synonym for self-organization, Maturana himself stated he would ‘never use the notion of self-organization, because it cannot be the case… it is impossible. That is, if the organization of a thing changes, the thing changes.’”

Are Skewes, Hooker and Kantian Naturalist using “autopoeitic” in a different way than Maturana or do they just disagree with Maturana’s statement? And what does it mean to reject “domino causation”? Is that just another way of spewing the nonsense of “emergence”? See “Materialist Poofery” for what I think of that nonsense.

Comments

Kantian Naturalist:
(1) The metaphysical commitments shared by the originators of modern science explain the intelligibility of nature better than other metaphysical commitments;
My claim is much more modest. I hope you're not disappointed. :) Modern science developed and grew because of a particular metaphysical climate that was conducive to it's growth. It found fertile soil, as it were, and flourished. It's not as if science never existed before. But it is also true that science didn't flourish in just any climate. There can be no doubt that Christianity in general and Scholasticism in particular played a leading role in the development of that climate.
Do (1) or (2) at all capture your position?
I think those two are a false dichotomy, to take a page from your own playbook. I don't mean to be coy. I think (2) is much too strong for my tastes, and (1) sort of misses the point in putting the emphasis entirely on metaphysical commitments. What were the competing metaphysics?
(3) All scientific inquiry necessarily presupposes some metaphysics of some sort or other which explains the intelligibility of nature,
As you say, this should be non-controversial. Not just in science, but in any system of enquiry.
(4) All scientific inquiry necessarily presupposes some metaphysics of some sort or other which explains the intelligibility of nature, but for every stage in the history of science, the explication of that intelligibility draws upon the results of scientific inquiry at that stage.
On one sense yes but in quite another sense no. The philosophers (metaphysicians) of the day seemed to be very familiar with the science of the day and in many cases you probably could not even tell them apart. It wasn't called natural philosophy for nothing. The metaphysics fed the science and the science fed the metaphysics. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but you had an excellent post and I didn't want to just toss off a response off the cuff. It's been a joy having you here. p.s. By the way, are you familiar with Neal Stephenson's trilogy, The Baroque Cycle? Masterful historical fiction. If you enjoy the history of science you might want to check it out.Mung_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

I don't have as good an answer for you as you may wish, Michael, but here it is: I just don't think there is any "progression [that] leads step by step . . . [from] strict reasonings that are empirically grounded to the heady heights of the classical metaphysical". I just don't think that there's any way of getting from the visible to the invisible, or in Kantian terms, from the conditioned to the unconditioned. Why do I think this? Let's consider the Big Three -- the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the freedom of the will -- and let's call "theism" the affirmation of the Big Three and "naturalism" the denial of the Big Three. Now, there are all sorts of "proofs" that purport to establish theism on the firm ground of experience. But, there are also all sorts of "proofs" that purport to establish naturalism on the basis of experience, too! On my view, Kant was right about two very important points: (a) experience cannot arbitrate between theism and naturalism, and (b) reason cannot arbitrate between theism and naturalism. Regarding (a) in particular: I don't think that Darwinian evolution lends support to naturalism, and I don't think design theory lends support to theism. Theistic evolution and natural design (e.g. by aliens) are as well-supported by evidence as unguided evolution and supernatural design (whatever supernatural intelligences did the designing). To summarize, both theism and naturalism are equally consistent with experience and with reason. You say you can reason from experience to theism; others say they can reason from experience to naturalism. And both lines of thought are just as rational as the other, so it seems that reason is divided against itself, and skepticism the only reasonable response. Hence -- I regard this point as always bearing repeating on this board -- I myself do not regard naturalism as more reasonable than theism -- nor vice-versa. As I often say here, from where I sit, it's a "leap of faith" either way. (I guess you could call my view "faitheism.") That's one big point I've been stressing in my conversations here. The other big point I've been stressing is that naturalism (conceived of as the denial of the Big Three) is no threat to such things as a liberal polity, respect for human rights, and other achievements of modern Western democracies (and others modeled after ours, such as contemporary India).Kantian Naturalist_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist, "I don’t see why it’s “self-deception” to think that some questions are beyond our finite, all-too-human capacity to answer, or at least to provide empirically-grounded answers." KN Do you ever consider the natural reasonableness that this is meant to be? I mean if we reason with all carefulness and the progression leads step by step to a door of faith that we must choose to open or knock at or knock down, built up from strict reasonings that are empirically grounded to the heady heights of the classical metaphysical then I see no good reason to reject or spurn this except as a wilful unfounded bias. It seems to be a simple natural and justified progression that leads from the visible to the invisible all in accord with reason. To at that point put an emphasis on empirical grounding strikes me as the thing that is ungrounded but introducing or perhaps re-introducing a step that is out of its logical progression and order. This is where choice does indeed matter more than as a mere subjective predilection or desire but rather it is summoned and commanded to account. ref. Romans chapter 1: 20Michael Servetus_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Mung, I'm glad we at least established some conversational framework, so we understand what we're talking about here. Now for some further refinements: is the claim that the intelligibility of scientific inquiry presupposes some metaphysics or other, or is that claim that the intelligibility of scientific inquiry presupposes the metaphysics of Christian theology? The former does not strike me as objectionable (though of course many philosophers disagree with it), whereas I'm highly skeptical about the latter. Put otherwise: I think it's true that scientific inquiry, successful and unsuccessful, necessarily presupposes that there is an intelligible reality to be investigated. But that doesn't establish very much! It certainly leaves wide open all sorts of questions as to how exactly that intelligible reality is to be characterized, and every characterization of that reality will draw upon scientific results, whether Aristotle's, Newton's, Darwin's, Einstein's, etc. (So there's some circularity here which is neither avoidable nor vicious.) Now, it seems to me that you want to establish a stronger claim here, namely something like: (1) The metaphysical commitments shared by the originators of modern science explain the intelligibility of nature better than other metaphysical commitments; or perhaps (2) Only the metaphysical commitments shared by the originators of modern science explain the intelligibility of nature. What I'd like to know is, have I done a fair job of articulating what's at stake here? Do (1) or (2) at all capture your position? And what's the argument for (1) (or (2)) in contrast to the weaker claim, (3) All scientific inquiry necessarily presupposes some metaphysics of some sort or other which explains the intelligibility of nature, and more radical claim, (4) All scientific inquiry necessarily presupposes some metaphysics of some sort or other which explains the intelligibility of nature, but for every stage in the history of science, the explication of that intelligibility draws upon the results of scientific inquiry at that stage. I think we can agree on (3) to some degree, but it seems to me that you want to argue from (3) to either (1) or (2), whereas I want to argue from (3) to (4). How am I doing so far?Kantian Naturalist_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

...does it follow that science is only intelligible, only makes sense, given those or similar metaphysical commitments?
Yes. Science isn't just about what, but also very much about why. Which assumes there is a why to be discovered.Mung_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

For some data on the religious identity of scientists, Scientists and Belief looks pretty good.
Modern scientists operate in a culture. Their personal beliefs don’t impact much on that culture, and that culture was there before they arrived on the scene.
That's perfectly true, and maybe a good response to timothya's objection, but there's another way of posing the problem. Given that modern science arose within a background informed by certain metaphysical assumptions, such as progressive revelation (as Stark emphasizes), does it follow that science is only intelligible, only makes sense, given those or similar metaphysical commitments?* Believe it or not, I really am trying to be fair here. But the problem as I put it above is the best I can do, for right now, to make sense of what the claim is under discussion. And I have to say, I just don't see why one should accept it. *For what it's worth, my knowledge of the emergence of science is based on Funkenstein, Dupre, and Toulmin.Kantian Naturalist_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

timothya: Have you seen the statistics on the proportion of US scientist who subscribe to a Christian worldview? Please. What does that have to do with anything? There must be some point where reality penetrates your hermetic mental crust. There must be some point at which you can offer a rational, cogent, relevant argument. Modern scientists operate in a culture. Their personal beliefs don't impact much on that culture, and that culture was there before they arrived on the scene.Mung_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, undergirded by the pseudo-scientific precepts of neo-Darwinism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when 'enlightened' Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:
"Christian" Atrocities compared to Atheists Atrocities - Dinesh D'Souza - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
footnote: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (legislation by liberal justices from the bench who basically view the constitution of the United States as 'evolving'!):
Abortion Statistics http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/18/abortion-statistics/
Related note:
Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/
In fact Charles Darwin, in his classic Origin of Species which is still venerated by the evolutionary elites of today, stated that...
‘At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"
If Darwinists want to insist that all these murderous consequences, and ethical implications, and hindrance of scientific progress, of Darwinism are just a mistake of the past will someone please inform Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, of that???:
Australia Awards Infanticide Backer Peter Singer Its Highest Honor – 2012 Excerpt: Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots: - Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.” - Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two.Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.” - Singer has defended bestiality. - Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. - Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.” – Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering. – Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/12/australia-awards-infanticide-backer-peter-singer-its-highest-honor/
Related notes:
The Population Control Holocaust - 2012 Excerpt:,,, the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland. While Malthus’s argument that human population growth invariably leads to famine and poverty is plainly at odds with the historical evidence, which shows global living standards rising with population growth, it nonetheless persisted and even gained strength among intellectuals and political leaders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Its most pernicious manifestation in recent decades has been the doctrine of population control, famously advocated by ecologist Paul Ehrlich, whose bestselling 1968 antihumanist tract The Population Bomb has served as the bible of neo-Malthusianism. In this book, Ehrlich warned of overpopulation and advocated that the American government adopt stringent population control measures, both domestically and for the Third World countries that received American foreign aid. (Ehrlich, it should be noted, is the mentor of and frequent collaborator with John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor.),,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust Malthus - Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM
quote:
"for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed." Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15. (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German 'master race' was defeated in World War II)
Music:
Evanescence - lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRk
bornagain77_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

ENCODE recently blew a gaping hole in the whole JUNK DNA argument of atheists:
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."" We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html
Incredibly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) still, before the ENCODE findings of 2012, insisted that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, was useless 'Junk DNA' even though levels upon levels of complexity were recently being discovered in the genome.
Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html
Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists:
Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm
Here is quote that succinctly denotes this very anti-scientific stance of neo-Darwinism;
'Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!' Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), P.No.168-69. - Received The Nobel Prize in Physics 1998
Moreover Darwinism, despite delusional denialism from atheists that would put chronic alcoholics to shame, has in fact had horrendous consequences for society in America and the world;
Documentary Ties Darwin to Disastrous Social Consequences - What Hath Darwin Wrought? - Sept. 2010 http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100926a
And let's not forget the horror of the holocaust. Although atheistic Darwinists are also in complete denial of this fact of history, Richard Weikart has done a excellent job in tying evolutionary reasoning directly to the supposed 'scientific justification' behind the holocaust:
From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html How Evolutionary Ethics Influenced Hitler and Why It Matters - Richard Weikart: - January 2012 http://www.credomag.com/2012/01/05/how-evolutionary-ethics-influenced-hitler-and-why-it-matters/ How Darwin's Theory Changed the World - Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
bornagain77_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Tim. let's take a bit closer look at the fruit of your preferred atheistic worldview and see exactly what it has brought us in science and society:
Matthew 7:15-20 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Neo-Darwinism’s negative effect on science and society Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University. http://www.discovery.org/a/2816 Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 'It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult.' - Francis Crick - co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953 - atheist Intelligent Design and Medical Research - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7906908 Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.html
In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). "Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/
Moreover, besides evolutionary reasoning NOT 'producing any new discoveries or increasing understanding', and besides the medical malpractice that evolutionary reasoning has led to, is the fact that it can be forcefully argued that evolutionary reasoning, the more dogmatically it has been clung to, has in fact inhibited the 'producing of new discoveries and of increasing understanding'. This is clearly illustrated in the junk DNA fiasco that evolutionary reasoning has foisted off on biology. Indeed imposed on it prior to investigation for any functionality in the non-coding regions of DNA;
Is Panda's Thumb Suppressing the Truth about Junk DNA? Excerpt: Dr. Pellionisz sent me an e-mail regarding his recent experiences at Panda's Thumb. Pellionisz reports that Panda's Thumb is refusing to print his stories about how he has personally witnessed how the Darwinian consensus rejected suggestions that "junk" DNA had function. Dr. Pellionisz's e-mail recounts how some rogue Darwinian biologists have believed that "junk" DNA had function, but it also provides historical proof that this went against the prevailing consensus, and thus such suggestions that "junk"-DNA had function were ignored or rejected by most Darwinian scientists. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/is_pandas_thumb_supressing_the003947.html International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases" Excerpt: uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177
Moreover the supposed Junk regions, once they were looked at more closely, were, amazingly, found to be 'more functional' than the protein coding regions:
Astonishing DNA complexity update Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update
bornagain77_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Tim, appealing to consensus of atheist in academia to support your position is similar to a bigot pointing to all white neighborhoods in the south as proof that blacks did not in fact build those neighborhoods in the first place!:
EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - Part 1 of 10 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405
Of note: The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68kbornagain77_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Bornagain posted this:
No, I beg to differ. The argument is far more nuanced than that. There is something within Christian thinking, besides what has turned out to be the correct framework for thinking about reality as ‘contingent and rational’, which sets it completely apart from other worldviews, a ‘something different’ that enabled, and continues to enable, the breakthroughs of modern science.
Continues to enable? Have you seen the statistics on the proportion of US scientist who subscribe to a Christian worldview? Please. There must be some point where reality penetrates your hermetic mental crust.timothya_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

What would be the proper dichotomy over against reductive materialism?
I'm not sure there is one! Does there need to be? Perhaps some version of emergentism (bottom-up) or emanationism (top-down) -- so, is there a larger class of theories that includes both emergentism and emanationism? Perhaps both might be regarded as varieties of holism -- one can plausibly regard holism as anti-reductionist. But in general, I try to avoid oppositional and "Manichean" approaches to how I configure the intellectual and practical options. I'm more interested in how opposed positions are partially internally constituted by that opposition, and how they feed off each other, and becoming increasingly polarized with every iteration of the feedback-loop between them.Kantian Naturalist_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

of related note:
The History of Christian Education in America Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all "sound knowledge and learning." http://www.ehow.com/about_6544422_history-christian-education-america.html
bornagain77_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Tim you state,,,
the argument boils down to, “we won, therefore we must have been right”.
No, I beg to differ. The argument is far more nuanced than that. There is something within Christian thinking, besides what has turned out to be the correct framework for thinking about reality as 'contingent and rational', which sets it completely apart from other worldviews, a 'something different' that enabled, and continues to enable, the breakthroughs of modern science. I hold that 'something different', as strange as it may sound to someone of the naturalistic mindset, to be the guiding hand of the 'Spirit of Truth' which proceeds from God the Father.
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
as for a few tantalizing pieces of evidence along this line:
Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html List of multiple discoveries Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time Inventors - George Washington Carver Excerpt: "God gave them to me" he (Carver) would say about his ideas, "How can I sell them to someone else?" http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventors/a/GWC.htm
A atheists may claim those are just coincidences and mean nothing, yet the following video gives deep insight into just how serious the problem of 'knowledge acquisition' is to the worldview of atheistic materialism:
Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in description of video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/
The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
The following article points out the flaw in a 2007 study that found equality in education between public schools and private schools by artificially 'correcting' the test scores upwardly for public schools:
Do private schools educate children better than public schools? Excerpt: The results of education testing seems to show mixed results on the question of whether private schools educate children better. The results of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress tests showed that private school students achieved higher scores at all three grade levels tested. However, a 2007 Center on Education Policy study found that once socioeconomic factors are corrected when assessing test results, private school students didn't perform any better than public school students. Basically, this study says that students who did well on the standardized tests would have done well regardless of whether they attended a private or public school. However, moving past the dueling tests and studies, what's clear is that private school students have better SAT scores, and better college admission and graduation rates, regardless of socioeconomic level. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/private-schools-educate-public-schools
It is also very interesting to point out that even though Christianity has a incredible track record of being very conducive for scientific progress, and also being very helpful to the education of children, Christianity is, in spite of this unmatched track record in education and scientific progress, treated with severe prejudice in higher education.
Majority of American University Professors have Negative View of Evangelical Christians - 2007 Excerpt: According to a two-year study released today by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), 53% of non-Evangelical university faculty say they hold cool or unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians - the only major religious denomination to be viewed negatively by a majority of faculty. Only 30% of faculty hold positive views of Evangelicals, 56% of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments hold unfavorable views. Results were based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,269 faculty members at over 700 four-year colleges and universities. Margin of error is +/- 3%. ,,, Only 20% of those faculty who say religion is very important to them and only 16% of Republicans have unfavorable views of Evangelicals; the percentages rise considerably for faculty who say religion is not important to them (75%) and among Democrats (65%).,,, "This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians,,,, One-third of all faculty also hold unfavorable views of Mormons, and among social sciences and humanities faculty, the figure went up to 38%. Faculty views towards other religious groups are more positive: Only 3% of faculty hold cool/unfavorable feelings towards Jews and only 4% towards Buddhists. Only 13% hold cool/unfavorable views of Catholics and only 9% towards non-Evangelical Christians. Only 18% hold cool/unfavorable views towards atheists. A significant majority - 71% of all faculty - agreed with the statement: "This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics." By comparison, only 38% of faculty disagreed that the country would be better off if Muslims became more politically organized. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/may/07050808
Apparently tolerance in academia only means tolerating those who are no real threat to your preferred worldview of atheistic materialism. This severe prejudice against professing Christians simply should not be so. Indeed, colleges should be fighting over recruiting the brightest Christian high school students instead of despising them.bornagain77_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

as to:
the argument boils down to, “we won, therefore we must have been right”.
No, I beg to differ. The argument is far more nuanced than that. There is something within Christian thinking, besides the correct framework for thinking about reality as 'contingent and rational', which sets it completely apart from other worldviews, a 'something different' that enabled, and continues to enable, the breakthroughs of modern science. I hold that 'something different' to be the guiding hand of the 'Spirit of Truth' which proceeds from God the Father.
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
as for a few tantalizing pieces of evidence along this line: Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html List of multiple discoveries Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time Inventors - George Washington Carver Excerpt: "God gave them to me" he (Carver) would say about his ideas, "How can I sell them to someone else?" http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventors/a/GWC.htm . The following video gives deep insight into how serious the problem of 'knowledge acquisition' is to the worldview of atheistic materialism: Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in description of video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/ The following video is far more direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig - May 2012 - podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960's) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism You can see the dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site; Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html The following article points out the flaw in a 2007 study that found equality in education between public schools and private schools by artificially 'correcting' the test scores upwardly for public schools: Do private schools educate children better than public schools? Excerpt: The results of education testing seems to show mixed results on the question of whether private schools educate children better. The results of the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress tests showed that private school students achieved higher scores at all three grade levels tested. However, a 2007 Center on Education Policy study found that once socioeconomic factors are corrected when assessing test results, private school students didn't perform any better than public school students. Basically, this study says that students who did well on the standardized tests would have done well regardless of whether they attended a private or public school. However, moving past the dueling tests and studies, what's clear is that private school students have better SAT scores, and better college admission and graduation rates, regardless of socioeconomic level. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/private-schools-educate-public-schools It is also very interesting to point out that even though Christianity has a incredible track record of being very conducive for scientific progress, and also being very helpful to the education of children, Christianity is, in spite of this unmatched track record, treated with severe prejudice in higher education. Majority of American University Professors have Negative View of Evangelical Christians - 2007 Excerpt: According to a two-year study released today by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), 53% of non-Evangelical university faculty say they hold cool or unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians - the only major religious denomination to be viewed negatively by a majority of faculty. Only 30% of faculty hold positive views of Evangelicals, 56% of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments hold unfavorable views. Results were based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,269 faculty members at over 700 four-year colleges and universities. Margin of error is +/- 3%. ,,, Only 20% of those faculty who say religion is very important to them and only 16% of Republicans have unfavorable views of Evangelicals; the percentages rise considerably for faculty who say religion is not important to them (75%) and among Democrats (65%).,,, "This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians,,,, One-third of all faculty also hold unfavorable views of Mormons, and among social sciences and humanities faculty, the figure went up to 38%. Faculty views towards other religious groups are more positive: Only 3% of faculty hold cool/unfavorable feelings towards Jews and only 4% towards Buddhists. Only 13% hold cool/unfavorable views of Catholics and only 9% towards non-Evangelical Christians. Only 18% hold cool/unfavorable views towards atheists. A significant majority - 71% of all faculty - agreed with the statement: "This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics." By comparison, only 38% of faculty disagreed that the country would be better off if Muslims became more politically organized. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/may/07050808 Apparently tolerance in academia only means tolerating those who are no real threat to your preferred worldview of atheistic materialism.bornagain77_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Mung posted this:
timothya:
Christians presuppose the existence of a rational creator, and can therefore rationally understand the universe. Is that your argument?
Does that even remotely resemble the argument that Jaki was making?
According to the Jaki quote that was included upthread, the acceptance of ex-nihilo creation, and the suppression of various necessitarian postulates was essential to the flowering of science in a Christian society (and conversely prevented in other societies). I can see why this mindset might be sufficient to guide scientific thinking into fruitful channels (though it doesn't explain why scientific progress was also retarded by Christian authority's insistence on other, clearly nonsensical presuppositions). But I can't see that it is necessary. Unless you want to argue that, since it happened this way, it could not have happened any other way. In any case, Jaki's argument only holds so long as one is prepared to devalue any and all scientific and technological developments that manifestly did occur in non-Christian societies. If so, the argument boils down to, "we won, therefore we must have been right".timothya_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

I try. What would be the proper dichotomy over against reductive materialism?Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Yes, that's quite reasonable.Kantian Naturalist_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Or it could be that teleology and design are not mutually exclusive.Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

It could be, if there's a fourth option. I can't think of one off the top of my head, though.Kantian Naturalist_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

KN:
In saying that (1) above is a “false dichotomy,” I meant to leave open that there could be a trichotomy: reductive materialism, teleology, and design.
But that's a false trichotomy.Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

In saying that (1) above is a "false dichotomy," I meant to leave open that there could be a trichotomy: reductive materialism, teleology, and design. Though I'm sure that the correct explanation, should we ever discover, would contain certain elements of each. And no, I doubt you do have time to read any more -- nor do I. And this stuff isn't even germane to my teaching or current research.Kantian Naturalist_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Trying to steer a path between mechanism and vitalism, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and his friend, biologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), created a new approach to the study of life: teleomechanism.* In 1790, Kant wrote to Blumenbach: "Your recent unification of the two principles, namely the physico-mechanical and the teleological, which everyone had otherwise through to be incompatible, has a very close relation to the ideas that currently occupy me." - Life's Ratchet
Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

"Mung, how about this?" Do I look like I have time to read another book!? ;) Is that one better than The Egyptian Book of the Dead?Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

(1) Either intelligent design is true or reductive materialism is true;
But what if the debate is not over ID and reductive materialism, but over teleology and reductive materialism? What if the actual world we inhabit is one from which teleology cannot be excised? What if reductive science isn't the be all and end all of what can be known? I think I would agree with you that (1) is a false dichotomy. But what would be the proper dichotomy over against reductive materialism?Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

as to one of many incoherent points:
“non-local” does not mean “beyond space and time”. It just means, “not restricted to particular spaces and particular times”.
I suggest you catch up on just how deeply locality has been violated by entanglement before you make such declarations:
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities were extended: Nonlocal "realistic" Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment - 2008 - Antoine Suarez Center for Quantum Philosophy, Excerpt: (page 3) "nonlocal correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen." http://www.quantumphil.org/SuarezFOOP201R2.pdf A simple approach to test Leggett’s model of nonlocal quantum correlations - 2009 Excerpt of Abstract: Bell's strong sentence "Correlations cry out for explanations" remains relevant,,,we go beyond Leggett's model, and show that one cannot ascribe even partially defined individual properties to the components of a maximally entangled pair. http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-simple-approach-to-test-leggetts-model-of-nonlocal-quantum-correlations/ Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory - (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can't stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, "Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them," says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm
bornagain77_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Mung, how about this? :)Kantian Naturalist_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility is the sequel to Stephen Gaukroger's acclaimed 2006 book The Emergence of a Scientific Culture. It offers a rich and fascinating picture of the development of intellectual culture in a period where understandings of the natural realm began to fragment.
Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

The author of Life's Ratchet cites The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth-Century German Biology and credits the author of that book with coming up with "teleomechanism." I wouldn't then be surprised to find that the quote in the OP was borrowed from The Strategy of Life. But really, teleomechanism? Aren't mechanisms inherently teleological?
...but that’s completely different from the task of describing what it is for something to be a living thing, as opposed to dead or inanimate matter.
All those authors on "what is life?" I want to read What Does It Mean to be Dead? Depending on how far back you want to go, here's another: Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek ThoughtMung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply