Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (184025)	3/23/2006 9:35:14 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Provine and Dawkins claim they were talking science not philosophy. Dawkins, at least, is making a kind of inductive argument, that the history of religion or non-material explanations, is one of retreat before the advance of science, hence why not take it to the logical conclusion. IMO, thats still a philosophical argument in the end. If he wants to believe that, fine. If I don't, find as well. We lack good data at the edge of knowledge. I think that some perhaps would like to develop a scientific based moral code. I actually find that somewhat attractive. Dawkins (and Carl Sagan in his later years) I think fall in this camp. The arguement which many great scientists make is that science can never tell us why, only the how of the universe. They thus abdicate values and moral issues to non-scientists. The claim is that meaning in life is not something science can comment on. Thus one is supposed to learn and accept science for ones facts, but find ones values in the religious or philosophical spheres. For hardcore materialists like Dawkins, this is equivalent to saying that morals and values are beyond study, that they are essentially imaginary. If morals and values actually have utility, then why can't science study them. If science can study them, then why can't science define them. It is an interesting question, but if one is pursuing it, it should be a field of its own endeavor. It need not be taught in a class where the students are paying to be taught biology. Good. What should be done about it IYO? In high school and lower, leave philosophy largely out of science. In the college level, my preference would be to tolerate more diversity both ways, but with some clarity as to what is opinion vs. science or religion. I've already posted that many or most ID proponents don't have a problem with common descent or with theistic evolution: Not true. Behe in the statement you quote is a good example. He always hedges. But from what I see, the evidence only shows natural selection explaining rather small changes That says it all. Microevolution vs. Macro. The entire point of ID is to escape kinship with Chimps and other Apes. For the rest of creation, they could care less. But the scientists call theistic evolution creationism. Some might, but most don't Re. the living coelacanth - you are saying it is a fraud - at least as it has been presented to the public ever since its discovery. HAve a link on that? No its not a fraud. It really exists. Its discovery was indeed exciting news. The fact that it is rather distinct from the ancient species does not distract from the discovery. See this link from the Discovery Institute where both Behe and Dembski are fellows for a better understanding of their position. dissentfromdarwin.org They carry on about this statement: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The vast majority of evolutionary biologist agree with this, but not for the reasons which ID does. They don't doubt evolution. There are a number of well known mechanisms for genetic change, (again Darwin was ignorant of all these details) and the degree of importance which should be accorded to each is an ongoing issue in biology. Thats science. For example, there is much debate over lateral gene transfer across species. Some think this has played a dominant role in evolution, others don't. Time will tell. But it does not change the fact of evolution at all. What should be very clear from reading their material, is that they offer nothing in terms of their own theory. It is all casting doubt on evolution. So what if the Cambrian was an abrupt evolutionary event? What theory do they put forward? Science is about tying things together, making all the evidence fit. The genetic evidence is going to 100% support common ancestery (or Nobels will be handed out as I've noted). So the Cambrian must fit within that framework, even as Darwin guessed it would, while lacking the extensive knowledge we have now. You still have not answered my question: If you accept common descent, why do you need ID. What does it do?