“Mirror” Needs to Hold One Up To His Side

_{Barry Arrington

October 13, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

A commenter who goes by “Mirrortothesun” writes:

Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. They construct arguments around that wish. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas.

Perhaps Mirror has never read evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin’s famous “divine foot” screed. Here it is:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Mirror accuses ID proponents of being committed to an a priori assumption and interpreting all data in the context of that assumption. Perhaps that is the case with some ID proponents. Personally, I am open to Darwinism. Indeed, I would love to be a Darwinist. It would make my life so much easier if I could go along with the herd instead of constantly swimming upstream. Alas, I cannot handle the necessary faith commitments.

Here is the point of my post. Mirror’s comment is laden with unintended irony; for he seems to be blissfully unaware of the close-minded dogmatism of many Darwinists. Only those bad ID types have a priori assumptions. Darwinists bravely follow the evidence wherever it leads. His naivety would be amusing if it were not so common . . . and so dangerous.

Comments

This thread is going nowhere fast...bbigej_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

If Moses came back to part the waters of the Red Sea, and if scientists were present to observe the event, would they be obligated to conclude that natural causes were responsible for the event?StephenB_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

As to:
“They say, “Science can not discern the Divine Foot, so let’s all agree that the Divine Foot does not exist and close our eyes to the obvious evidence for him.””
To which acispenser responded:
If the evidence were obvious it follows that science would discern this evidence. Obviously, the evidence is not obvious thus the need for faith.
But alas, science HAS DISCERNED the evidence and it is now abundantly obvious that a divine foot (beyond space and time causality) is not only in the door of molecular biology, but has indeed kicked the door in!!! Yet sadly, the 'faith' of atheists, in purely material causality for molecular biology, has thus far prevented them from seeing that transcendent (beyond space and time) divine foot that governs molecular biology. notes:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Verses and Music
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Todd Agnew – This Fragile Breath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoGPG4JOcXs Brooke Fraser – Lord of Lords(Legendado Português) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkF3iVjOZ1I
bornagain77_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

But I do think the next step is the development of a mechanistic theory, followed by a search for evidential support.
The mechanics of information transfer by semiosis has been explained to you. And the physical, observable evidence of a semiotic state in the translation apparatus of the genome is something you blew off as uninteresting. /shrugsUpright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

That’s pretty incoherent to me, BA77.,,, I guess that is because it is transcendent logic and your material brain state does not respond, indeed CANNOT respond, to something that is not materially based.bornagain77_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

I beg to differ :) I don't think hunches and speculations should be "rejected as absurd". But I do think the next step is the development of a mechanistic theory, followed by a search for evidential support. And I also think that when we already have a good mechanistic theory, with substantial evidential support, that a hunch or speculation that lacks both is not likely to be taken seriously at least until it has them.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd
Exactly as it should be, and in the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of Intelligent Design should likewise be rejected as absurd. Once a plausible mechanism is proposed, that's when the real science can begin.NormO_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Acipenser, lol
Why do you feel the need to cut either of the last two sentences out of the quote if they do not affect your argument?
Firstly, I didn't cut anything out. What I did is respond to your suggestion that the last two sentences somehow explain or mitigate anything whatsoever about the first portion of the quote. They don't, just exactly as Lewontin himself says. The first of the final two sentences is entirely incoherent with regard to the recorded history of science. If you doubt this then you can address the actual recorded history regarding the theistic beliefs among the fathers of the scientific enterprise. You can explain how having such beliefs has been shown to be detrimental to the institution of science. The second of the two sentences is nothing but a strawman, as evidenced by the fact that no one seriously has proposed a break in natural law (and in regard to ID, no such break in natural law is required in order to conduct the science of design detection). In other words, its utterly a "strawman" just exactly as the phrase "strawman" has been described in the study of logical fallacies since it was first enumerated among them. Without hesitation, Lewontin told us upfront were his commitments are; instead of the sober commitment among scientists being properly given to an unwaivering respect for the evidence, it shall be given over to their materialistic ideologies instead. The final two sentences of that paragraph were nothing more than a committed materialist taking a cheap shot at his intellectual opponents.
Elizabeth’s post, (@6.1.2), presents a clear synopsis of the problem with allowing a Divine (or demon’s) foot in the door.
Dr Liddles treatment of the issue is little more than changing the strawman's hat. Perhaps you haven't heard such a presentation before ("This is how science works...") but many here learned the scientific method long ago, and have heard the opening remarks more times than we care to count.
Upright I’m curious how you would go about discerning the activities of the Divine versus the Demon in a scientific inquiry? Perhaps you could explain using a simple example, e.g.., an organism response to graded doses of a toxicant. What results would suggest a Divine foot versus a demons footprints?
Please don't ask me stupid-assed questions. Thanks.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

This is the main problem with evolutionists. They mistake limitations of science as evidence against God.
No, it is not "the main problem with evolutionists". There are a huge number of "evolutionists", a tiny minority of whom "mistake limitations of science as evidence against God". A vast number are theists, and of those who are atheists, most do not consider science "evidence against God", they simply consider that there is no value in believing in something for which they have no evidence. In fact, I can't myself think of an example of an atheist who is an atheist because s/he thinks that science is evidence against God, although many may reject what what was once considered evidence for God or gods (lightning? rainbows? life?) as being perfectly explicable by natural causes. That is quite different from considering the power of those explanations as "evidence against God".Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

"They say, “Science can not discern the Divine Foot, so let’s all agree that the Divine Foot does not exist and close our eyes to the obvious evidence for him.”" If the evidence were obvious it follows that science would discern this evidence. Obviously, the evidence is not obvious thus the need for faith.Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

The annoying thing is that many, many, otherwise intelligent people follow this reasoning with a glaring category mistake. They do not say, "Science can not discern the Divine Foot, so let's all acknowledge the limitation of Science". They say, "Science can not discern the Divine Foot, so let's all agree that the Divine Foot does not exist and close our eyes to the obvious evidence for him." This is the main problem with evolutionists. They mistake limitations of science as evidence against God. They are rightly called fools by God. Ps. 14:1.JDH_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

“Science works.” Yes it does, except when it doesn’t (which, of course, is why Dr. Liddle left herself some wiggle room).Barry Arrington_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle is correct. Science does not, indeed cannot, take account of miracles. The entire scientific project is premised upon previously observed regularities continuing to occur. Obviously this does not mean that miracles do not occur. Most people believe miracles do occur, and that belief is based upon evidence. It is not based, as some would have it, on blind faith. Nevertheless, miracles are not susceptible to scientific investigation because they are, by definition, irregular and unpredictable. All of this, of course, is beside the point of my post, and perhaps I should have made this clearer. In his comment “Mirror” implies that only ID proponents approach the data from a point of view, when it should be perfectly obvious that everyone approaches the data from a point of view. And it should also be perfectly obvious that we must all struggle to overcome our biases, because they make us almost literally blind. Stephen Jay Gould was very good on this issue. To his credit, he acknowledged that scientists are sometimes unable to see data that does not fit into their preconceived notions. Here are some nuggets. “. . . but stasis is data . . . Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: ‘stasis is data; stasis is data’ . . .” Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 759. “We expect life’s bushes . . . to tell some story of direction change. If they do not, we do not feature them in our studies – if we even manage to see them at all . . . Paleontologists are now beginning to study this higher order stasis, or nondirectional history of entire bushes.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Cordelia’s Dilemma,” Natural History 102.2 (February 1993): 15, 10-18. “Correction of error cannot always arise from new discovery within an accepted conceptual system. Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Cordelia’s Dilemma,” Natural History 102.2 (February 1993): ____, 10-18. During the period of nearly universal rejection [of the continental drift theory], direct evidence for continental drift – that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our continents – was every bit as good as it is today . . . In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away . . . The old data from continental rocks, once soundly rejected, have been exhumed and exalted as conclusive proof of drift. In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the expectation of a new orthodoxy. I regard this tale as typical of scientific progress. New facts, collected in old ways under the guidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial revision of thought. Facts do not ‘speak for themselves, they are read in the light of theory. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Validation of Continental Drift,” in Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (1978; reprint, London: Penguin, 1991), 161.Barry Arrington_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Why do you feel the need to cut either of the last two sentences out of the quote if they do not affect your argument? Elizabeth's post, (@6.1.2), presents a clear synopsis of the problem with allowing a Divine (or demon's) foot in the door. Upright I'm curious how you would go about discerning the activities of the Divine versus the Demon in a scientific inquiry? Perhaps you could explain using a simple example, e.g.., an organism response to graded doses of a toxicant. What results would suggest a Divine foot versus a demons footprints?Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

That's pretty incoherent to me, BA77. Could/would you rephrase that into something coherent and on topic?Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

If the last two (omitted) sentences have no influence on the quoted passage (and they do) why not include them instead of selectively misrepresenting what Lewontin wrote?
Which one of the last two sentences are you referring to? The one which is entirely evicerated by the recorded history of scientific investigation, or the one which erects a strawman to stand in the place of unprejudiced empiricism?Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

This is how science works: We have observations. We devise a model that might explain our observations. We test our model by using it to predict new observations. We make new observations. If the new observations fit our model well, we keep the model (always provisionally). If they fit it badly, we adjust, or even abandon, the model. The Divine Foot cannot be accommodated in this methodology, because the Divine Foot is not a "regularity". Let us say we observe a miracle. We make a model that says: miracles occur when we pray for them. So we set up a testable prediction: we ask people to pray for a miracle, and we make new observations. We compare these with the effects of no prayer. And lo and behold, we do not get any miracles. Why? Because God is not regular - not predictable. Skeptics say: see? Prayer does not work. Believers say: Do not put God to the test. His ways are mysterious. He answered you prayers, but on this occasion His answer was no. Both inferences are unjustified. What is justified is Lewontin's actual point: there is no place for the Divine Foot in science. Science can neither prove nor disprove God, because the entire scientific methodology is based on the premise that the universe is predictable, and that the job of scientists is finding the keys to making the predictions. If you want a predictable God, by all means let the Divine Foot in. Or, if you want useless science, by all means let the Divine Foot in. But it seems to me better to let science do what it does well, i.e. proceed on the assumption that the universe is predictable; and, if you want, pray that on occasions it isn't (and that on those occasions, the unpredictability works in your favour).Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Liz Liddle could have left out evrything else and just kept the last line: Which, on the whole, works. Thats the key. Science works.Graham_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

,,,And Acipenser, irony of ironies is that you are trying to use your God-given transcendent logic to 'cause' us to believe what you are saying is true, i.e. to prove to us that, ultimately, belief in transcendent causality is a non-existent fantasy. Ahhh yes, the ever schizophrenic world of materialistic atheists where cognitive dissonance is cherished above all else! Tori Amos - Cornflake Girl [UK Version] (HD Official Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oWSGcRrauAbornagain77_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

"Oh Acipenser, wake up. Let me post Lewontin’s remaining sentence before you hyperventilate over the lost scholarship:" for a discussion of what the last two sentences contribute to the context of the quote see Elizabeth's post at #8 I found it funny that Mr. Arringotn would accuse mirror of making a post containing 'unintended ironies' while ignoring, or not recognizing, his own contributions to the irony of the situation via quotemining Lewontin. Certainly, you can agree that if mirror had never read that passage before s/he has now had only a edited version presented for perusal. If the last two (omitted) sentences have no influence on the quoted passage (and they do) why not include them instead of selectively misrepresenting what Lewontin wrote?Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Oh Acipenser, wake up. Let me post Lewontin's remaining sentence before you hyperventilate over the lost scholarship: "The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." Now let us take a look at what the good man said, shall we? He says "anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything". What a profound observation - no doubt backed up with equally profound scientific inquiry and observation. Who might that list include? Newton, Maxwell, Pasteur, Galileo, Corpenicus, Kepler, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Plank, Boyle, etc, etc. You know, all those silly men and their silly ideas (certainly none as "eminent" as Kant, mind you), who built the scientific foundation to which Lewontin has assumed needed his fraternal protection (apparently from the likes of those who created it). And what else does he say, "To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured". Ahh, yes, the King of the strawman army. The intimidating threat that should we allow ourselves to follow evidence without prejudice, then certainly pianos may fall from the sky. What will we do? This comment is one that must be made as a sacrifice on the alter of materialist ideology. It's the one where the materialist shows his cards. Apparently, the fundamental key to understanding materialism to to understand that good materialists are given special latitude to not even be materialist if the material in question threatens their materialist ideology. In other words, if being a full-fledged materialists causes one to doubt the efficacy of some explanations based upon our ever-deepening knowledge of the material involved, then to hell with materialism - we'll just bullshit our way through it, and call it science. Watch out for the pianos.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Of course it's true. It's not that science cannot "tolerate such miracles" but that its methodology is intrinsically unable to research them. Science proceeds by looking for regularities and abstracting reliable predictions. By definition, a miracle is excluded from the regularities of the rest of the universe, and no theory of miracles can be devised which could give rise to a testable hypothesis.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

I would like a specific example of this method as used by an "evolutionist". Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

The key to understanding that quotation from Lewontin's review are the two sentence that immediately follows the part you quote:
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
In other words, science cannot proceed except under the assumption that nature is regular. To allow the possibility that nature may not be regular is to open ourselves to belief in "anything". Now, it is perfectly possible that that assumption may be unjustified. Perhaps there is an irregularity at the heart of the reality that renders all science unreliable. But the entire methodology of science, as Lewontin says, is predicated on the assumption that we can abstract general laws from our observations, and expect that what is true today will also be true tomorrow. That is why the Divine Foot must be omitted from scientific calculations, not because it doesn't exist (though I don't think it does) but because even if it does, it is simply not amenable to the methodology of science. Which, on the whole, works.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Mirror acknowledged that his statement was true of his own post. I agree with him in principle, if not to his extreme. I believe that evidence held as supporting darwinism (perhaps some suspicious transitional fossils) is tainted because there's a less-then-objective drive to get results supporting a certain conclusion. But to be intellectually honest I must admit that even if I claim perfect objectivity I'm fooling myself. Of course I want one side to be right. Anyone who cares enough to debate the matter and doesn't recognize that about himself is lying to himself. We talk a lot about astronomical improbabilities. Confirmation bias is not so unlikely for me or for anyone else. So what do we do? We can't fix human nature. We can't change the other person who we suspect of such bias. Maybe it's us, not them. All we can do is try to factor in an awareness of our own motivations and biases as we reason. It's like polluting. Everyone does it and it's bad for everyone, but our only course of action is usually to cut back on our own. Within that awareness, we reason the best that we can and try to persuade. And if we feel that logic is on our side and the other person is exhibiting bias then we can make that case.ScottAndrews_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Acipencer, is the quote really unfair?, How about this following quote; Here is another quote that, though not as detailed as Lewontins's, none the less gets the same point across:
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
OK acipenser, please tell me exactly what apriori principle he is speaking of in science that mandates the total exclusion of Intelligent Design as ever even being remotely considered as a viable answer in these questions of origins? i.e. Exactly why are atheists allowed to dictate what type of answers are valid and what type of answers are not valid in these questions of origins? Shouldn't we let the evidence speak for itself??? Speaking of which, when even a child sees one of these following molecular machines,,,
Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 Molecular Biology Animations - Demo Reel http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/ The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4 Powering the Cell: Mitochondria - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4 Programming of Life - Protein Synthesis - video http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/4/m5Z3afBdxB0 Dna Molecular Biology Visualizations - Wrapping And DNA Replication - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8 Astonishing Molecular Machines – Drew Berry http://www.metacafe.com/w/6861283 Body Code - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZLiZB0iPY Ben Stein - EXPELLED - The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4227700
,,,They know instinctively that the molecular machine was designed and that it was not a chance assemblage of parts. Why is this impression, that is so obvious that even a child immediately sees it, denied as valid, especially considering that atheists have no credible answers for how they came to be, much less an actual demonstration:
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist
bornagain77_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

LOL, Upright if you consider quote-mining to be a demonstration of due diligence and scholarship far be it from me to try and dissuade you. the unintended irony is rich: "Perhaps Mirror has never read evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin’s famous “divine foot” screed. Here it is:" meaning, of course, that 'I'm' only going to present an edited version so I can to the quote reflect what I want it to reflect.Acipenser_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. Is that what it's called? The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– Construct a hypothesis and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. Search for evidence They construct arguments around that wish. Theorize and predict. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas. Alas, it seems like under the buzzwords "desperate" and "wish" lies the image of Mirror's most beloved: the scientific method. Alas, the core tenets of Darwinism have disintegrated; I assure you it is no wish,no hypothesis, no theory, that random mutation and natural selection are unable to account for the diversity of life on the planet. It is an experimental fact. Alas, it is not a wish that complex specified information is best explained by Intelligent Design, but a direct observation. Alas, an a priori is further justified by the validity of the foundation premise. Alas, if Darwinian processes were capable I assure you, your arguments from homology would receive much less flak. Alas Mirrortothesun, drink and be merry, for from the ivory tower a hit was issued on your head for such outright blasphemy of the modus operandi.oyer_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

One of the methods that I use every now and then when I comment on various blogs is to paraphrase the comment of an evolutionist and turn his argument back on him. Evolutionists start with what they know is the truth– that evolution must be true – and then they look desperately for evidence that supports their belief. They construct arguments around that beleif. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas.NeilBJ_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Barry, Acipenser wants you to know that you have been unfair to Lewontin. All that stuff he said about having an "absolute" prior commitement to materialism... is just not true. Its not true. If we were to be so remiss in our duties in seeking truth that we allow ourselves to recognize something as blatantly demonstrable as the semiotic state in protein synthesis, for example, then surely the regularities of nature will be burst wide open, being foreever ruptured with pianos falling from the sky. Science cannot tolerate such miracles.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply