Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Metaphors, Design Recognition, and the Design Matrix

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here are excerpts from The Design Matrix by Mike Gene:

Metaphors such as “fear”, “cost”, “abhor” and “angry”, commonly share the projection of consciousness onto the world. Metaphors such as these represent the human tendency to view the world through anthropomorphic glasses. However, the metaphors employed by molecular biologists are not of this type.
….
Metaphors typically break down when we begin to take them literally.

[but] The design terminology that is used in the language of molecular biology does not break down when interpreted literally
….

there is a basic and literal truth to the use of design terminology in molecular biology–these technological concepts are just too useful. Metaphors are certainly useful when explaining concepts to other human beings, yet the design terminology often goes beyond pedagogy–it provides true insight into the molecular and cellular processes. An understanding of our own designed artifacts, along with the principles required to make them, can guide the practice of molecular biology.

Why is it that some metaphors are no where near as effective for describing biology as well other metaphors, especially design metaphors?

Mike Gene recognizes qualitatively the enigma that others recognize quantitatively. There is an improbable coincidence between the architecture of human-made systems and the architecture of biological systems. Recognition of these coincidences is the recognition of specified complexity, and recognition of specified complexity is the recognition of design. Outside of biotic reality, there are no other assemblages of matter in the universe which fit design metaphors more exactly than those found in biology.

I liked Mike’s book, but I especially liked Chapter 3. Chapter 3 suggests the fact that biology is well described by design metaphors is a clue that biological systems (like birds, plants, and bunnies) are intelligently designed. UD readers are invited to read about the other clues which Mike outlines in his book, and the consilience of these clues constitutes The Design Matrix.

Notes:

From wiki:

Metaphor (from the from Latin metaphora; see the Greek origin below) is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. It is a figure of speech that compares two or more things without using the words “like” or “as.” More generally, a metaphor describes a first subject as being or equal to a second object in some way. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context. A simpler definition is the comparison of two unrelated things without using the words “like” or “as”, the use of these words would create a simile. For example,she is a button.(as cute as a button)

Comments
This is why some of the most notable evolutionary biologists that have studied the process of speciation have been specialists in birds: Darwin himself (recall Darwin's finches), Wallace (who discovered "Wallace's Line" primarily by studying birds),and Ernst Mayr, who studied birds in the same biogeographic region as Wallace, but a half century later.Allen_MacNeill
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
In #86 Pendulum asked:
"Is there something about flight that encourages speciation?"
Indeed, there is: organisms that can locomote through the air (either by active flight or passive drifting) can move from place to place more often and over farther distances than organisms that swim, and especially organisms that are either constrained to locomotion on the ground surface or fixed to the ground (like plants). This is because organisms that can move relatively long distances can become geographically isolated much more easily, and geographic isolation (technically referred to as "vicariance" in evolutionary theory) is the most common process that leads to genetic divergence and reproductive isolation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciationAllen_MacNeill
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
JohnADavison: Iconofid It is Davison not Davidson and it has been Dr. Davison since 1954. My sincere apologies. As for the death of Darwinism, that occurred in 1871, twelve years after the publication of the Origin of Species when St. George Mivart asked the question in his book Genesis of Species - How can natural selection have been involved in a structure which had not yet appeared? It certainly couldn't, Dr. Davison. I should imagine that that's one thing that everyone on this blog would agree on. I think that all theories depending on the clairvoyance of natural selection should be abandoned immediately.iconofid
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Iconofid It is Davison not Davidson and it has been Dr. Davison since 1954. As for the death of Darwinism, that occurred in 1871, twelve years after the publication of the Origin of Species when St. George Mivart asked the question in his book Genesis of Species - How can natural selection have been involved in a structure which had not yet appeared? Mivart dedicated all of chapter II to it - THE INCOMPETENCY OF "NATURAL SELECTION" TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCIPIENT STAGES OF USEFUL STRUCTURES, pages 35-75.JohnADavison
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Cheers, Tom. I thought that was what I did, but I must've missed something out. Convergent frozen fish (Missing link from a few posts up, with apologies).iconofid
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
iconofid: You can use this syntax: [a href=”http://google.com”]Interesting Link[/a] except replace [ and ] with . This will generate the following hyperlink: Interesting Link.Tom MH
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Sorry, missing link above. HTML didn't work. How do I put in a link, someone?iconofid
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Jerry: "I assume the term convergence which has been used here would require different genomic combinations for specification and if the same proteins, systems are used then the term convergence would be inappropriate." Yes, Jerry. If the same route, it's parallel. Here's a neat example of convergent rather than parallel. Two different designers, perhaps.iconofid
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Allen, Is there something about flight that encourages speciation? I was always struck by the large numbers of species in flying groups.Pendulum
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
By the way, it is my understanding one of Dr. Davison's specialties was physiology.scordova
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
How can we test the premise that flight “evolved” from the flight-less? That is the issue. Saying X evolved is meaningless unless it can be demonstrated that such evolution is even possible
Joseph, I understand you are a retired airline pilot. Perhaps you might elaborate to our readers the effect of on an aircraft of a malformed airfoil. What may not be evident to someone looking at an flying system is how sensitive the system is to unwelcome variation. For a bird to fly it must coordinate a large number of surfaces simultaneously. In aircraft with many control surfaces a computer is needed to coordinate the surfaces because a human would not be able to do this. I would expect evolution of flight to be rather costly since the intermediate stages would usually be fatal! Anyone in the aerospace industry knows how difficult it is to create a system capable of controlled flight. The functional constraints are extremely narrow. It may appear an airplane is tolerant of change (such as damage to a warplane's wings), but this tolerance is a design feature. The problem with the evolution of flight is as Walter Brown said, "an arm will become a bad arm before it becomes a good with". The conceptual intermediates would appear to be selected against not selected for. An airplane that can't fly makes a bad car. I deeply appreciate Allen's providing info that attempts to explain evolution through cladistic analysis. But this illustrates that radically different thought process between the communities of EBers and IDers. The physilogical and mechanical details are often the questions my side of the aisle are insterested in. As Leo Berg pointed out, it appears all the required parts appeared suddenly and in the right location morphologically. This makes sense to an engineer, the intermediates wouldn't make much mechanical sense. A car will become a bad car before becoming a good airplane. For people on my side of the ailes, there is similar principle at issue in the evolution of flight.scordova
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
JohnADavidson: "Of course history will be the final arbiter. It has already relegated the Darwinian fairy tale to the trash bin of evolutionary science." Eberhard Dennert: "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, Plus ca change.....:)iconofid
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Allen, By the timing of your post, I assume they are not being held up anymore or is it just on this thread? An interesting list of species that move either by air or water. I assume the term convergence which has been used here would require different genomic combinations for specification and if the same proteins, systems are used then the term convergence would be inappropriate.jerry
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
I like to salute Allen for his patience and persistence here. I consider myself honored to have him lend his expertise here. He was extraodinarly kind to my fellow IDEA students at Cornell at some risk to himself. I feel a debt of gratitude on behalf of those in IDEA (the ID organization I was affiliated with). I will try to release any of his moderated comments on this thread as quickly as I can, but I cannot monitor the moderation and spam queues continuously. If I inadvertently delete a comment, I hope he will bring it to my attention by reposting. There are other threads by other authors at UD. I have no jurisdiction there whatsover, in fact I have to wait for my comments to be released there. These measures evolved at UD because of the intense traffic that attempts to enter this website. This has also led to technical and logistic issues. I appreciate everyone's patience with the process, and if it is any consolation, I have to wait for some of my comments at UD to appear as well.scordova
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Joseph, The four indispensable friends of the natural evolutionist are It evolved It was selected for it emerged it was exapted There may be others but the lack of these would leave them speechless on most discussions of evolution. And from my recent readings, the last one is the most in favor at the moment.jerry
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Here's the abstract for the reference on the evolution of seed dispersal in flowering plants:
Evolution of fruit types and seed dispersal: A phylogenetic and ecological snapshot. Claire M. Lorts, Trevor Briggeman, and Tao Sang (Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA) Abstract: Success of flowering plants is greatly dependent on effective seed dispersal. Specific fruit types aid different mechanisms of seed dispersal. However, little is known about what evolutionary forces have driven the diversification of fruit types and whether there were phylogenetic constraints on fruit evolution among angiosperm lineages. To address these questions, we first surveyed the orders and families of angiosperms for fruit types and found no clear association between fruit types and major angiosperm lineages, suggesting there was little phylogenetic constraint on fruit evolution at this level. We then surveyed fruit types found in two contrasting habitats: an open habitat including the Indian desert and North American plains and prairies, and a closed forest habitat of Australian tropical forest. The majority of genera in the survey of tropical forests in Australia were fleshy fruit trees, whereas the majority of genera in the survey of prairies and plains in central North America were herbs with capsules and achenes. Both capsules and achenes are frequently dispersed by wind in the open, arid habitat, whereas fleshy fruits are generally dispersed by animals. Since desert and plains tend to provide continuous wind to aid dispersal and there are more abundant mammal and bird dispersers in the closed forest, this survey suggests that fruit evolution was driven at least in part by dispersal agents abundant in particular habitats.
In other words, the evolution of similar air-borne fruit and seed dispersal mechanisms in flowering plants (like the evolution of flight in animals) is more likely to have evolved via convergence than homology. Again, movement through the air clearly involves stringent constraints on physical structure, which is why all "flying things" have many structural features in common, despite having come from very different, non-flying ancestors.Allen_MacNeill
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
In #77 joseph asked:
"How can we test the premise that flight “evolved” from the flight-less?"
The same way one tests any hypothesis about evolutionary derivations: look at comparative anatomy, comparative genomes, and the fossil record. Here's a place to look on the web: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html and here's another: http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/evolutio.htm and another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flight There are many technical references on this subject as well. I would start with the first link, and then follow up the references listed in the second and third links (the Wikipedia link also has links to the evolution of flight in groups other than birds). For plant seed dispersal mechanisms via the air, check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achene and this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara_(fruit) and this one: http://plantbiology.msu.edu/files/Fruit%20evolution.pdf You can also read the last link online here: http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:N6XhcSBy0b8J:plantbiology.msu.edu/files/Fruit%2520evolution.pdf+evolution+of+samara+achene&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usAllen_MacNeill
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill: Flight (defined as “locomotion through the air”), has evolved independently dozens of times, in taxa that are hardly related at all (indeed, are in at least three different kingdoms): How can we test the premise that flight "evolved" from the flight-less? That is the issue. Saying X evolved is meaningless unless it can be demonstrated that such evolution is even possible.Joseph
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Allen, thank you very much for your description of being an unprogrammed Friend. That was both fascinating and inspiring. hazel.hazel
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
Bruce Fast in #68. If I have "crumbled" brainstorms as you claim, why am I still allowed to comment there, one of the few venues from which I have not been banished. I do not have "theories" either. I have proposed a couple of hypotheses which are in complete accord with everything we now know about the fossil record as well as all the findings of molecular biology. To be candid, I regard my hypotheses as already largely verified and accordingly well on their way to theory status. Of course history will be the final arbiter. It has already relegated the Darwinian fairy tale to the trash bin of evolutionary science. The Truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is. It is summarized in my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and in the closely related Universal Genome Hypothesis, neither of which can ever be reconciled with Godless, aimless, purposeless Darwinism.JohnADavison
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
bfast Since you would ban me summarily, please do not get a weblog. I have enough enemies already. You are of course welcome at my weblog provided you use your full name of Bruce Fast. As for "debate" in any form, I challenge anyone to cite a single example in which "debate" has served to resolve any problem, scientific or otherwise. "Debate" is for politicians, lawyers, referees and certain weblog "debating teams" whose names I am hesitant to mention but who are already well known. Now if I am going to be banished once again from participation here, (which seems to be the goal of Bruce Fast and perhaps others), I recommend that it be for good cause. I have but one goal which is to discover "The Truth" which often requires responding to those who are convinced they have already found it. "Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." Winston ChurchillJohnADavison
March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
Convergent evolution finding the same blueprint? We should be able to tell by looking at genomes. I know of one example in fish where the same solution was arrived at by completely different routes.
I would agree that recognition of a common theme is important. Convergences in biology converge to metaphors. Some of the most notable metaphorical concepts seem so real that we don't give them a second thought because to our thinking, that's what they are. An eye is an eye. A male is a male, a female is a female. These seem so obvious, but if we step back we will realize these convergent features are organized and grouped together under metaphors we created or accepted "naturally". There is nothing in physics in chemistry that compels us to lump certain characteristics in a certain way. A powerful example of convergence? Eyes. Another example of convergence, sexual reproduction. From Dr. Davison's evoutionary manifesto:
In the Darwinian or sexual model, one might anticipate some universal sex-determining mechanism operating throughout evolutionary history. If, as I believe, the role of sexual reproduction is to limit evolution, one would anticipate a wide variety of sex-determining devices evolving independently. Such is the actual case. I found that the idea of an independent sexual evolution had already been expressed. The Russian cytologist N.N. Vorontsov was one of the first to call attention to the independent evolution of sex determination. Just as the transition from isogamy to anisogamy and to oogamy took place independently of each other in the various phyla of plants so the formation of mechanisms of the cytogenetical sex determination with differentiated heterochromosomes follows the same pattern in various kingdoms and phyla and results in an independent occurrence of the XX-XY system in Melandrium as well as in many Insects and Mammals, whereas the ZW-ZZ system evolved independently in Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Serpentes and Aves. Against the background of these facts it is unclear whether the male species of different groups are homologous to each other or not; they appear to be nonhomologous. “The evolution of the sex chromosomes” (1973), page 646
From Evolutionary Manifestoscordova
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
JohnADavison: I didn’t come here to “debate.” I came to offer an antidote to the Godless Darwinism that still is allowed here for reasons I fail to understand. I thought you might have come here to give us all a good laugh. Either that, or to demonstrate a new method of doing science by quotes and assertions.iconofid
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Flight (defined as "locomotion through the air"), has evolved independently dozens of times, in taxa that are hardly related at all (indeed, are in at least three different kingdoms): KINGDOM ANIMALIA: Bats Fruit Bats (very different from insectivorous bats) Flying Squirrels Phalangers Birds Dromaeosaurs Pterosaurs Amphibians (there are 3,400 species of frogs from both New World (Hyla) and Old World (Rhacophoridae) that have independently evolved gliding flight) Flying Fish Insects Spiders (babies, who "balloon") KINGDOM PLANTAE: Plants that reproduce using winged seeds, called samaras: Ash Trees Elms Hop Trees Maples Basswoods Plants that reproduce using seeds carried in balls of drifting fluff: Cattails Dandelions (and many other Compositae) Milkweeds Thistles KINGDOM FUNGI: Many widely separated taxa of fungi have a spore-producing stage in which the spores are transported by drifting in air currents And if one broadens one's definition of "flight" to include "locomotion through a gaseous or liquid medium, without regular contact with a solid substrate", then this would include most aquatic metazoa. This is why some "fish" (such as rays) look surprisingly like birds and bats, as they "fly" through the water, and why some winged animals, such as penguins, "fly" only in the water. "Flight-like movement", in other words, is strongly constrained by the mechanics of flight, and so all "flying" entities (including imaginary ones, like dragons, and man-made ones, like airplanes) have structural features in common. This is the sense in which "convergence" is used in evolutionary biology, and clearly it is not necessarily the result of "related genetic pre-programming".Allen_MacNeill
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
scordova: "Thank you for your comment." And thankyou for your reply. "Needing a solution to a problem is different from finding a solution to a problem. The need of a solution is no guarantee a solution will be found." I agree entirely. "The presumption in your argument is that if a creature needs to solve a problem, somehow it will (without any inelligent guidance) through mechanisms of selection. We know experimentally and observationally and theoretically this is not true." No, that's not what I would presume, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of species are extinct illustrates that we do not get exactly what we need. The other thing is obvious imperfections amongst those lineages still around. We could have used resistance to the Black Death when it killed half the population of Europe, but there weren't mutant immune systems to cope with it, and the cetaceans could arguably use a new breathing system that draws oxygen from water, but they haven't evolved it yet! What I meant was that our machines have to function under the restraints of the laws of physics, and so does evolution, so there will be (often superficial) similarities like the use of wings, but there are massive differences as well. As for experiments asking for organisms to solve specific problems, they certainly will sometimes. It must be remembered that, if the only possible route to the solution is complex, evolution has a lot more time than we do, and the quantity of organisms in a laboratory is nothing compared to what's in the wild! Convergent evolution finding the same blueprint? We should be able to tell by looking at genomes. I know of one example in fish where the same solution was arrived at by completely different routes.iconofid
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
For what it's worth (and because I have been rather sneeringly referred to as an atheist by persons who shall remain unnamed, here is some information that some here may find interesting. I am a Quaker; that is, a member of the Ithaca Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. The actual name for "Quakers" is Friends. When they started out (in England in the 17th century) they tended to refer to themselves (rather grandly, IMHO) as the "children of the light" and/or "the publishers of truth". However, by the time they had come to America they had settled on the Society of Friends. "Quakers" was a somewhat derogatory name given to them by their opponents in Cromwell's England. It is important to note that there are two different kinds of Friends, known as "programmed" and "unprogrammed" (sometimes referred to as "evangelical" and "traditional", respectively). The programmed/evangelical friends are a lot like Methodists: they meet on Sundays in buildings that look like churches (but generally without steeples), there is a minister who gives a sermon, there is often a choir, and the congregation sits auditorium-style facing the front of the "church" where the pastor speaks. Following the service there is generally "fellowship time", with coffee and snacks in the fellowship room, etc. Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were both brought up in "programmed" Friends meetings. The other kind (the original kind, the kind invented by the founder of the Friends, George Fox, and the kind of meeting that I belong to) meets in silence in a simple (often very plain) meeting house, with no minister, no choir, no hymns, no sermons, indeed no "program" at all. Everybody waits in silence for the "gathering of the spirit", usually all facing each other in a roughly circular (or square) arrangement of chairs or short pews. Sometimes a person in meeting is "moved" to stand up and speak (or, much more rarely, to sing). This almost never happens until at least a half hour of silence has gone by. No one comments while they speak, although people sometimes join in with a familiar song. When they have finished speaking, they sit back down and all wait for the silence to "settle". I've never been at a meeting at which more than a half dozen people spoke, and I've been at plenty at which nobody spoke for the entire hour (and sometimes much longer than that, as some special meetings have no set time limit). In an unprogrammed/traditional meeting such as the one in Ithaca there are no officials except for the Clerk of the Meeting, whose responsibility it is to keep people informed of when and where meetings are happening, and to take notes at "meetings for worship with attention to business", which generally happen once a month. The Clerk also "breaks" meeting by catching people's eyes and turning to the people next to them to shake hands. At the "rise of meeting" the Clerk makes announcements and invites members of the meeting to share concerns. There is also a Treasurer, who keeps accounts, but is not considered to be an "officer" and is not elected. Both the Clerk and the Treasurer have assistants, and are usually chosen annually by the committee for ministry and oversight (which used to be referred to as the elders, a now archaic term). I was for many years a member of this committee. Probably not surprisingly to some at this website, I am generally known among the Ithaca Meeting as a "minister"; that is, someone who is often moved to speak. I haven't done so in about a year, but that's not unusual, especially for our meeting. Some meetings have a tradition of recording and drawing attention to ministers, but this is rare and becoming more so among "traditional" Friends meetings. Although as one might expect there are a number of Cornell and Ithaca College professors in our meeting, the overwhelming majority of our members are not professional academics. Rather, they are working people from the town; everything from secretaries to lumberjacks to farmers (quite a few of these, as it turns out; Ithaca is "centrally isolated"). Membership in a traditional Friends meeting is gained by petition to the committee on ministry and oversight, who appoints a "clearness committee" for the prospective member. Clearness committees work together with members to "come to clearness" on particular issues. People can ask for a "clearness committee" to join the meeting, get married "under the care of the meeting" (FWIW, the Ithaca meeting has been recognizing marriages between same-sex couples "under the care of the meeting" for almost thirty years), decide on taking a particular job, pursue a particular academic degree, get divorced (yes, it happens, although not often) or whatever is of concern to them. Anyone can ask to join a meeting, and there is no prohibition against people becoming members of a Friends meeting while remaining full members of other churches or religions. Indeed, there are a number of agnostics and atheists in our meeting (but, as I stated earlier, I'm not one of them). Because of this process, we say that a person becomes a Friend by "convincement", not conversion, and that "convincement" must come from within, not from a minister or the group. Perhaps the most noticeable difference between "traditional" Friends and other religious groups is the total lack of a creed or "confession of faith". Instead, we maintain a collection of written "Queries and Advises", which are periodically read and revised by clearness committees. We feel that it is each person's responsibility to come to whatever "measure of the light" we can. All decisions (and I mean ALL decisions) are made by pure consensus. There are no votes taken at any Friends meetings, including those held with attention to business. This means that some decisions take a generation or more to be reached, but when they are finally arrived at, everyone in the meeting has agreed to the decision and will back it wholeheartedly. Friends are one of the three historic "peace churches" (along with the Brethren and Mennonites). To be a Friend means never to participate in war or the preparation for war in any form whatsoever. I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, and remain one to this day. This doesn't mean that Friends are pacifists, however. Quite far from it; Friends are very active in our "peace witness", often placing ourselves between combatants and doing humanitarian work around the world. The Friends service group, the American Friends Service Committee, received the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Friends worldwide, for our corporate work for peace and reconciliation. Friends also don't proselytize (indeed, there is a heavy but unspoken prohibition against doing so), and so the foregoing should be considered to be informational only. If you would like to learn more about the Society of Friends, I recommend this website: http://www.quaker.org/ Here is the website for the meeting I attend: http://ithacamonthlymeeting.or... "Dearly beloved Friends, These things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided: and so in the light, walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." – Given forth at a General Meeting of Friends in the Truth at Balby in Yorkshire, in the ninth month 1656, from the Spirit of Truth to the Children of LightAllen_MacNeill
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill:
As to any further responses to Dr. Davison, I will not be making any, not to any of his comments, not here, nor anywhere else under any circumstances, ever. To those of you who value civility, courtesy, and the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy, I recommend that you do the same.
I know of where you speak. I have toyed around with starting my own blog. One of the few people who would be banned would be the good doctor of which you speak. I'm sorry to hear that you are getting too busy for this website. I rarely agree with you, but do value your learned perspective. JohnADavison:
Thank you jerry but I do not “debate.” I confront and expose.
That would be the problem. Dr. Davison, your theories have a lot of merit, but they need civil debate. Civil debate needs to be richer than siting what another expert has said. I am sorry to see you reinvigorated on this site, as I watched you crumble the ISCID brainstorms site with a flood of frequently very ungracious comments that usually had little information in them.bFast
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Dr. Davidson, I'm having a hard time understanding your position. There have been many many posts recently about Weasel, and Dr. Elsberry was nice enough to help out with some code that has been posted. Is it your position that in a "pocket universe" like a GA that evolution happens, or doesn't happen? In the history of life on Earth, has evolution happened in the past, but stopped recently? Is it possible that life is at this moment evolving on other planets? I'm trying to understand what exactly it is that you are fulminating against.Pendulum
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Dear Allen MacNeill. Since you have now deleted all my comments at your own blog, I am not surprised that you would refuse to recognize my existence here or anywhere else for that matter. Apparently I cannot characterize the Darwinian fairy tale as an experimental and descriptive disaster without damaging your precious sensibilities and launching you into a veritable petit mal seizure. I have said nothing incivil either here or at The Evolution List and you know it. I have simply challenged the biggest hoax in the history of science. So did every one of my distinguished sources. If you choose to refuse to respond to my critique of the Darwinian model it will make my task that much easier. That suits me just fine. So you go right on influencing undergraduate minds at Cornell with the most tested, the most failed, and the most persistent flight of human imagination ever generated in the history of rational discourse. It doesn't get any better than this. I love it so!JohnADavison
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
I would like to say thanks to all of the commentators here who have valued my participation in our discussions. Yes, we have had our disagreements, and yes they have been heated at times, but I have never attacked a person's character, nor their motives in criticizing my positions. Indeed, as should be clear by now, I value your criticisms, as they have made me think about these issues in ways that I would not have without the opportunity to defend them in this forum. I have attempted at all times to maintain as civil and courteous a tone as possible, while at the same time criticizing those ideas with which I disagree. Sal has explained the situation that has caused my comments to be withheld from posting, and I understand. Indeed, I have had the same problem at THE EVOLUTION LIST, and have had to revert to full-time moderation. Ergo, I will be returning here and posting comments from time to time, as the opportunity presents itself and my time permits. I understand that there will be a lag time between posting my comments and their appearance here, and recommend that you all take that into account when soliciting responses from me. As to any further responses to Dr. Davison, I will not be making any, not to any of his comments, not here, nor anywhere else under any circumstances, ever. To those of you who value civility, courtesy, and the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy, I recommend that you do the same.Allen_MacNeill
March 25, 2009
March
03
Mar
25
25
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply