Uncommon Descent Contest 19: Spot the mistakes in the following baffflegab explanation of intelligent design theory

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 26, 2009

Contests}

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

In a review in First Things by David B. Hart, of Richard Dawkins’s The Greatest Show on Earth, we are informed – on the mag’s cover – that Dawkins “gets a gold star” for his book of that name (January 2010 Number 199).

Indeed, he does get the gold star from reviewer Hart. Hart is full of praise for Dawkins, though daintily demurs at his hardline atheism. But he is a total, unwavering convert to the greatest scam ever conceived in the history of biology, that Darwinism – a conservative aspect of wild nature that trims out life forms unsuited to an ecology – actually has vast creative powers.

I can’t yet seem to find the review on line, but that was not for lack of trying.

Now the contest: Here’s what Hart has to say about design in nature:

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise – irreducible complexity” – that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.

Commenters, for a free copy of Expelled, can you spot the mistakes in the quoted passage above? I mean, actual mistakes, as opposed to “He isn’t making any sense.” There is enough of the former, but you will find plenty of the latter too, I am afraid.

Here are the contest rules. Most important: No more than 400 words.

Also: If you won a previous contest quite recently and your prize is late, it is most likely because our post office here has four days off at this time of year, and I can’t do a thing about that. If you won a long time ago and never got your prize, write me at oleary@sympatico.ca

Note: This contest has been judged. Go here for more.

Comments

#79 Vjtorley The article by Dr. Kenneth Miller which you linked to, The Flagellum Unspun – The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ has been refuted by Dr. William Dembski in an article entitled Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller vjtorley I am aware that there has been extensive discussion about whether there are intermediate steps or not. I suspect Miller is right, but that is not the point of this particular comment. I was asked how you could test the hypothesis that the flagellum arose through RM+NS. The very fact that there is a substantial debate about whether there is a credible path from simpler beginnings, and both sides consider this to be relevant, shows how it can be tested. If a path is established then this is evidence for the hypothesis (although not conclusive), if there are repeated failures to establish such a path then this is evidence against it (although not conclusive). Actually as we are talking probabilities it is probably better to think in terms of relative likelihood of alternative hypotheses (following Sober). As I understand it (I am not a biologist) it is for this reason that, for example, endosymbiosis has rather superseded RM+NS as an explanation of mitochondria. (Interesting it has also been proposed as an explanation of the flagellum but dismissed)Mark Frank_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Mustela, None of that is consciousness. Read my link. Consciousness is the quality of experience. Not the correlates of experience. Tell me what red looks like or what pain feels like and then I'll concede that it is scientifically understandable. Let me be clear though, I don't say that consciousness is unnatural, only that it cannot be understood through science. Here's a though: how do you know that I am conscious? In other words, how do you know I'm not a biological machine with no actual feeling?Collin_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

-----Mustela Nivalis: What specifically do you find objectionable about my definition in 75: -----“Natural” refers to that which falls under the purview of methodological naturalism. More specifically, it is that which can be understood via the scientific method. Because the purpose of the definition is to describe, identify, or otherwise characterize what it is that falls under that purview. That way one can know what does not fall under that purview. Even if I accepted the second sentence as a definition, [that which can be understood by the scientific method], it doesn’t have anything to do with what “humans,” are or are not, which was the object of your claim. In that context, humans could not possibly be either natural or non-natural, which makes nonsense of your claim that “there is no evidence that humans are anything but ‘natural.’” A proper definition of “natural” will describe WHAT is being studied [nature] not HOW it is being studied [your references to “testability.” It would be ridiculous, for example, to say that humans are natural because they are testable and non-natural if they are not testable. Surely, you can perceive the absurdity of that formulation. -----”I said that, by the definition of “natural” that I provided, humans are most certainly natural.” That is not true. -----“Yes, it is. See my post 75 again. No it is not. Why would I look at post 75 when you made the claim at post 29, at which you wrote the following: -----“All intelligence of which we are aware is the product of complex physical brains, all of which operate according to known physics and chemistry. There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural.” At no other location did you make that claim, and you will notice it was made absent any definition of the word, “natural.” Why would you say that you provided a definition of natural at that time when that was clearly not the case? ----“I’m delighted to continue the conversation. If you find my definition unacceptable for some reason, please be explicit in your objections and I’ll see if I can clarify it.” The problem is not a lack of clarity but a lack of texture that would qualify as a definition. Here is a hint: Try using your descriptive terms at 29, which come much closer to a definition than anything you have offered so far: Example: A thing is natural if it “operates that according to the known laws of physics and chemistry.” That would have much more substance. Then you could plug in your claim with your definition: “There is no evidence that humans are anything except ‘things which operate according to the known laws of physics and chemistry. That would make sense, and would lead the way to a rational discussion. As it is, you are in intellectual quicksand because you definition of natural makes no sense. Surely, you can see that by now.StephenB_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Collin at 84, By the way, Mustela, if the only things that are natural are testable by the scientific method, then many, MANY things in our world are unnatural. For example, consciousness. On the contrary, different brain states can be measured through a variety of mechanisms. Neuroscientists have observed memory creation and several groups are working on brain-computer interfaces, for example.Mustela Nivalis_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

I think a lot of posters here would do well to research the definitions and philosophical discussions extant concerning naturalism, the supernatural etc. It seems like a lot of argument here is mere shuffling around of ignorance. By the way, Mustela, if the only things that are natural are testable by the scientific method, then many, MANY things in our world are unnatural. For example, consciousness. See the following:http://consc.net/papers/puzzle.pdfCollin_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 80, I don’t want to be unkind here, but you have not provided anything close to a definition of the word “natural.” What specifically do you find objectionable about my definition in 75: “Natural” refers to that which falls under the purview of methodological naturalism. More specifically, it is that which can be understood via the scientific method. As the websites I linked to elaborate, the essence of the scientific method is testability. If we can hypothesize and make testable predictions about a phenomena, it's natural. —-”I said that, by the definition of “natural” that I provided, humans are most certainly natural.” That is not true. Yes, it is. See my post 75 again. I cannot have a rational discussion with you until you define the word “natural.” I'm delighted to continue the conversation. If you find my definition unacceptable for some reason, please be explicit in your objections and I'll see if I can clarify it.Mustela Nivalis_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

vjtorley at 79, Cabal (#74) I agree with you that lifting a pen does not violate any of the laws of physics. But neither is it reducible to the laws of physics. Since you are definitely one of the more thoughtful posters here, I'm sure you have something particular in mind, so I'll step up to be your sounding board. What do you mean by "reducible" here? It is certainly possible to measure the forces acting on the muscles and bones within a hand, and the chemical and electrical potential changes in the nerves, to explain the lifting of a pen according to physics.Mustela Nivalis_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

vjtorley at 79, Mustela Nivalis (#75) You claim that humans are “most certainly ‘natural’” – where ‘natural’ means ‘that which can be understood via the scientific method.’ Here’s my question: Can critiques of, and debates about, the scientific method, be understood within the framework of the scientific method? Certainly. The essence of the scientific method is testability. To the extent that critiques of anything are testable, either against logic or objective, empirical evidence, they are subject to the scientific method. I’m sure you can see my point: meta-science cannot be explained within the framework of science. To do meta-science, you need to step out of the box. Could you provide an example of "meta-science"? Are you referring to epistemology in general? Humans are pretty good at doing that, which is one reason why I’m pretty suspicious of any attempt to naturalize human reason. Humans can certainly come up with all kinds of wild ideas that have nothing to do with reality. The process by which they come up with them, though, is (as far as anyone has been able to tell) constrained by chemistry and physics in a physical brain.Mustela Nivalis_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis: "No, I clearly said that it refers to that which can be understood via the scientific method." I don't want to be unkind here, but you have not provided anything close to a definition of the word "natural." The websites to which you sent me did not provide that information. In any case, why would you want to send me to a website when you can provide your own definition right here, right now. Definitions do not usually require much space. They do, however, require a great deal of thought. ----"I said that, by the definition of “natural” that I provided, humans are most certainly natural." That is not true. Here is what you said, word for word: "There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural." That statement makes no sense without a definition of the word, "natural." If you want to go through a little intellectual exercise, then ask yourself this question: What kind of evidence could show that humans are not natural? I cannot have a rational discussion with you until you define the word "natural."StephenB_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Let me begin by saying that I'm not competing for the prize on this occasion, as I've already seen "Expelled" online. Some news for interested UD readers: David Bentley Hart's review is now online at http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/12/the-dawkins-evolution Other contributors have dissected Hart's statements about ID, and for a rebuttal of Francis Collins' claim that ID rests upon an argument from personal incredulity, I'd recommend Logan Paul Gage's review of Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in American Spectator, October 1, 2006, at http://www.discovery.org/a/3749 . For my part, I'd just like to make two comments about the conclusion of Hart's critique of intelligent design:
...the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism’s phylogenic antecedents.
(1) As a matter of fact, complexity is calculable. Indeed, the literature on complexity lists many yardsticks for measuring it. (2) Explaining an organism's complexity in terms of the complexity of its ancestors begs the obvious question: how do you explain the complexity of the first living organisms? Where did they come from? Mark Frank (#73) I hope you had an enjoyable Christmas. The article by Dr. Kenneth Miller which you linked to, The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity' has been refuted by Dr. William Dembski in an article entitled Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller . Dembski has also addressed the proposals in Nicholas Matzke's paper, Evolution in (Brownian) Space: A Model for the Origin of the Bacterial Flagellum in his article, Biology in the Subjunctive Mood: A Response to Nicholas Matzke . Finally, I would also recommend Dembski's paper Irreducible Complexity Revisited as an counter to Miller's paper, Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design , which is on his home page. As far as I know, Miller has not attempted to answer either of Dembski's online essays. Mustela Nivalis (#75) You claim that humans are "most certainly 'natural'" - where 'natural' means 'that which can be understood via the scientific method.' Here's my question: Can critiques of, and debates about, the scientific method, be understood within the framework of the scientific method? I'm sure you can see my point: meta-science cannot be explained within the framework of science. To do meta-science, you need to step out of the box. Humans are pretty good at doing that, which is one reason why I'm pretty suspicious of any attempt to naturalize human reason. Cabal (#74) I agree with you that lifting a pen does not violate any of the laws of physics. But neither is it reducible to the laws of physics.vjtorley_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 76, I ask you to define “natural,” and you tell me that it refers to the study of that which is natural. No, I clearly said that it refers to that which can be understood via the scientific method. If you followed the links I provided, you would see why this definition makes sense. In short, it is because our knowledge of nature grows as we continue to apply the scientific method to phenomena we previously have not understood. If human's are, by definition, "natural" I did not say that, either. I said that, by the definition of "natural" that I provided, humans are most certainly natural. If you disagree, please provide evidence for any characteristic of humans that is not amenable to scientific study.Mustela Nivalis_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

The distinction between natural and supernatural is not well-defined. It can be a useful heuristic in that we don't invoke a demon to explain why the solution turned blue. But ultimately, science hinges on the interplay between proposing hypotheses and testing their entailed empirical consequences.Zachriel_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

----Mustela Nivalis: By this definition, humans are most certainly “natural.” I ask you to define "natural," and you tell me that it refers to the study of that which is natural. Even if I accept that non-definition, it proves my earlier charge that everything you have said is total nonsense. If human's are, by definition, "natural," then your statement in which you claim that "there is no evidence that humans are anything but natural" is completely meaningless. How could anyone provide evidence that humans are not natural, if humans are, by definition, natural, and if all evidence that would disprove that they have non-natural qualities is disallowed under the rule of methodological naturalism. You are chasing your own tail without even knowing its location. That's a neat trick. Anyway, I cannot have a rational discussion with someone who will not define his terms. I am still waiting for your definition of the word, "natural." [Characterizing it as the study of that which is natural will not do}.StephenB_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 70, Please define "natural." There was an excellent discussion of that question on the the Neurologica blog over a year ago. (Warning: there are posts there that contain derogatory comments about ID. I reference it only for the discussion about the definition of "nature.") My definition is similar, namely that "natural" refers to that which falls under the purview of methodological naturalism. More specifically, it is that which can be understood via the scientific method. Some good summaries of the essence of scientific understanding are here and here (again, I am focusing on the explanations, not the associated anti-ID comments on this site). By this definition, humans are most certainly "natural."Mustela Nivalis_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

You should not object to that appellation since from what I understand all your neural actions are the result of physical forces that cannot be contravened and your typing patters are solely the result of these physical forces.
Do we - or you - have any evidence that there is anything else than chemical/physical forces at work in our - and your - brain/mind? May I point to a truism, that the whole is more than the sum of its parts? In short, I believe nobody knows for certain that what we are, is anything but the result of natural forces at work. Now, WRT violating laws of physics: I fail to understand how that is possible. The only 'method' I can think of is the one employed by God, magic: things happening without any cause, like an object lifting from the ground without any observable, detectable force. What about robots? When a robot lifts an object, is that violation of a law of physics too?Cabal_{December 30, 2009
December
12
Dec
30
30
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

#72 How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie random mutations and selection? By gradually deducing the intermediate stages http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html Remember (1) Evolutionary theory continues to develop in the light of data. RM+NS has been rejected in specific instances and replaced by things such as genetic drift and endosymbiosis. (2) It is can be very hard to test specific instances within a very robust theory. I may find it hard to test the theory that a rock on the ground fell from a mountain (maybe someone carried it down, or a God transmuted it) - but that doesn't shake my faith in gravity.Mark Frank_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
I thought you were asking for a testable outcome arising from the RM+NS hypothesis. i.e. an outcome that if not true would be strong evidence against RM+NS. I believe all the outcomes I have provided fall into this category.
I don't know how I could have been any clearer and I have shown that your answers do not fit the bill. That said- an example- How can you test the premise that the bacterial flagellum arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie random mutations and selection?Joseph_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Mustela Nuvalis (#55): "Defining humans to be other than natural isn’t the answer. If you mean to suggest that intelligence can exist absent a physical substrate, you need to provide objective, empirical evidence for your claim. (If I am ascribing a position to you that you do not hold, please correct my misunderstanding.)" For me the biggest problem with materialist theories of mind is a mountain of empirical evidence for psi and other paranormal phenomena. Of course the legion of closed minded skeptics simply, complacently, deny the real existence of this evidence, which clearly shows direct human mind/matter interactions and the validity of an interactive dualist theory of mind. Given this there really is no meaningful communication possible.magnan_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

---Mustela Nivalis @64: "I don’t rule that possibility out at all. Please define "natural."StephenB_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

I often see the question of whether intelligence is material tied up closely with intelligent design. If the functions of the human mind were contained entirely in the physical brain, would that affect ID at all? I don't see how it would.ScottAndrews_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 60, You stated originally and dogmatically that minds are the “product” of brains, a point that most of us disagree with, and, when called on it, you reformulated your argument to say that minds are “associated with” brains, a point that everyone knows to be true. Did you quietly make that change by design, or did it happen by chance? I meant the same thing by both. As far as anyone has ever been able to tell, minds are a product of physical brains. I'll quote myself (https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/darwinism-and-popular-culture-socrates-the-employment-line-forms-out-back-eight-blocks-from-here-in-front-of-a-boarded-up-door/#comment-342629) in defense of that proposition: ...the “obvious” conclusion I draw from personal experience is that human consciousness definitely requires a physical brain. I observe that non-living brains do not demonstrate consciousness. I observe that blows to the head can interrupt consciousness. I have read peer-reviewed papers documenting personality changes as the result of brain injuries. This leads to your next comment: —–“There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural.” . . . You implicitly define everything except the supernatural as natural, which rules out the possibility that humans could be anything but natural. I don't rule that possibility out at all. What I claim is that there is no objective, empirical evidence that suggests that humans operate according to anything other than the same physics and chemistry that govern the rest of the world. If anyone believes otherwise, it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence for their claim. Then you say that there is no evidence that humans are anything but natural. Do you have evidence to the contrary? —-“Defining humans to be other than natural isn’t the answer.” You are chasing your own tail, here. We are not discussing ID, we are discussing your statement. Did you shift the focus by design, or was it the result of chance? Here we were discussing your statement that ID defines "natural causes" to be equivalent to "non-intelligent causes." As I've pointed out, the natural/intelligent split you prefer introduces problems with connotations and the potential for equivocation that are lessened if you simply say intelligent/non-intelligent.Mustela Nivalis_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

---Retroman: "Being intellectually curious is part of being a critical thinker. I had never heard nor seen that word before, was curious about it, and so I asked." Would you be interested in learning about the definition and history of the word, "designophobia?"StephenB_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

"Namecalling is not appropriate in what should be a rational discussion." Rational? Give me a break. I often include ideas that can tease out what someone is about. Where will their comments go. It is usually pretty easy to guess. I am rarely wrong on this because the anti ID people are so transparent. That intelligences interfere with normal natural processes is something my 5 year old niece understands well. The 10 year old has got it down pat. My 11 month old nephew has a grasp of the idea too as he cries for someone to get the spoon back for him after he intentionally drops it. But anti -ID people here. I sometimes wonder. Maybe they are automatons. You should not object to that appellation since from what I understand all your neural actions are the result of physical forces that cannot be contravened and your typing patters are solely the result of these physical forces. By the way your objection to my calling you a "jerk" implies that I have options. But I thought that I didn't have that capability. Now I believe I do but understand that you might not but I definitely believe I have options. So in the future I will have more compassion for someone like yourself who is challenged and does not have the same opportunities as I. As John Davison used to say here, "They cannot help it, Darwinists were born that way."jerry_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Google?Zach Bailey_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

I have no idea what you think gravity is, but it doesn’t seem you understand it.
What does it mean to violate gravity? It seems to me it means one would have to do something or create some situation in which the inverse square law does not hold.Mung_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Stephen B said: "If you are striving to be a strong critical thinker rather than a weak critical thinker, why did you begin your foray into the subject matter by disrupting the theme of the thread with a demand for a precise definition, history, and etymology of the word, “bafflegab?”" Being intellectually curious is part of being a critical thinker. I had never heard nor seen that word before, was curious about it, and so I asked.Retroman_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

History of a dialogue: —-Mustela Nivalis: “All intelligence of which we are aware is the product of complex physical brains, all of which operate according to known physics and chemistry.” Please defend that statement with reasoned evidence. Just to give you a leg up, that was an argument, not a definition. The word “product” made it an argument. ----“I’m not sure what you mean by your last two sentences, but I don’t see anything particularly contentious in noting that all intelligences of which we are aware are associated with physical brains, nor with noting that those physical brains have been investigated and found to operate according to known physics and chemistry. Which of the two statements do you feel needs more support?” You stated originally and dogmatically that minds are the “product” of brains, a point that most of us disagree with, and, when called on it, you reformulated your argument to say that minds are “associated with” brains, a point that everyone knows to be true. Did you quietly make that change by design, or did it happen by chance? —–“There is no evidence that humans are anything but natural.” Do you realize how nonsensical that statement is. -----“No. If I thought it were nonsensical, I wouldn’t have written it.” You implicitly define everything except the supernatural as natural, which rules out the possibility that humans could be anything but natural. Then you say that there is no evidence that humans are anything but natural. If you can’t perceive how ridiculous that formulation is, I can’t help you. -----“No. If I thought it were nonsensical, I wouldn’t have written it.” I don’t doubt that you didn’t think it was nonsense. On the other hand, it was nonsense. ----“Defining humans to be other than natural isn’t the answer.” You are chasing your own tail, here. We are not discussing ID, we are discussing your statement. Did you shift the focus by design, or was it the result of chance? ----“If you mean to suggest that intelligence can exist absent a physical substrate, you need to provide objective, empirical evidence for your claim.” We are not talking about my claim, we are talking about your claim, which, again, is nonsense. ----“ (If I am ascribing a position to you that you do not hold, please correct my misunderstanding.)” Would it help if I put it in capital letters or in bold print? We are not talking about me, we are talking about you.StephenB_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

jerry at 58, “I have endeavored to be extremely polite while posting here. Please describe exactly how asking for a clear definition of your terms and an honest recognition of your assumptions (some form of dualism, evidently) constitutes being a “jerk.” ” Explain to me how natural laws operating with out intelligent intervention, You are immediately assuming your conclusion here again. Unless you have some objective, empirical evidence that intelligence is not subject to the constraints of physics and chemistry, the only rational view is that intelligent causes are a proper subset of "natural" causes. If you wish to distinguish between intelligent causes and non-intelligent causes, using the term "non-intelligent" rather than "natural" avoids confusion and reduces the opportunity for errors of equivocation later. I stated the obvious. You stated something I found confusing and I asked for clarification. You immediately went to quibbling. Requesting clarification is not quibbling. That is in my understanding an example of a “jerk.” Namecalling is not appropriate in what should be a rational discussion.Mustela Nivalis_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

"I have endeavored to be extremely polite while posting here. Please describe exactly how asking for a clear definition of your terms and an honest recognition of your assumptions (some form of dualism, evidently) constitutes being a “jerk.” " Explain to me how natural laws operating with out intelligent intervention, produced the clothes you have on, got them to your closet or drawers and then put them on your body. Is this an ongoing process that can be analyzed using the basic laws of physics, chemistry etc with no reference to intelligent activity? If it isn't, then why make the bid deal over what I said? I stated the obvious. You immediately went to quibbling. That is in my understanding an example of a "jerk."jerry_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

#47 Joseph you are right - I am confused as to what you want. I thought you were asking for a testable outcome arising from the RM+NS hypothesis. i.e. an outcome that if not true would be strong evidence against RM+NS. I believe all the outcomes I have provided fall into this category. They are of course compatible with other mechanisms and hypotheses - but then all outcomes are compatible with an infinite range of hypotheses. You say you want to test "the mechanism" - but, for example, if the mechanism for inheritance were blended in nature then the Darwinian mechanism would be shown to be false. I really don't know what you are looking for.Mark Frank_{December 29, 2009
December
12
Dec
29
29
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply