Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:33 AM
26 online now:
PaulK, RAZD (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 256 of 302 (372710)
12-29-2006 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:02 PM


Lawyers are very clever at getting you to say or appear to say things.

So, did this lawyer persuade Behe to perjure himself, or was he telling the truth under oath?

But in debating scientists Behe is in his element.

I just finished reading a very interesting response to one of his chief critics, Ken Miller. The response was too technical concerning the details of microbiology for a layman like me in that field. But it does show Behe had an answer to Miller's criticism. This talk was on trueorigins. And I only quote here the final paragraph:

If you didn't understand his argument, what makes you think it's a good one? Why do you think he's "in his element" debating with scientists when the debate is "too technical" for you to know whether he is, in fact, getting his butt kicked?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:02 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 257 of 302 (372712)
12-29-2006 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:43 PM


With many people it is dogma even of a religious kind. It requires I think a huge amount of "faith". For lack of a better word I use the word "faith".

Ooh, ooh, I can think of a better word!

"Evidence".

Some people do not have enough of this faith to believe the claims of a Dawkins or a Ken Miller.

Funny how all these people lacking "faith" all seem to be religious. It's almost as though it requires faith to reject a well-established scientific theory.

And in this technological age many people view scientists as a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives.

But unfortunately you can't quote anyone saying this, 'cos ... 'cos they're all invisible or something.

I hope that you take note that I keep using words like "many" and "some".

Yes. At least you don't have the gall to pretend that this applies to anyone you're debating.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:43 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 258 of 302 (372715)
12-29-2006 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Dr Adequate
12-29-2006 7:23 AM


So, did this lawyer persuade Behe to perjure himself, or was he telling the truth under oath?

Point me to where I can read the testimony.

If you didn't understand his argument, what makes you think it's a good one? Why do you think he's "in his element" debating with scientists when the debate is "too technical" for you to know whether he is, in fact, getting his butt kicked?

Why should I assume he got trounced just because you say he did?

Yea, the details of that exhange are beyond my knowledge. But I got the jest of it. Miller exaggerated according to Behe. He pointed that out by using the words of the experimentor himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 7:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 8:17 AM jaywill has responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 259 of 302 (372717)
12-29-2006 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
12-29-2006 7:33 AM


Ooh, ooh, I can think of a better word!

"Evidence".

Miller called his defense of Evolution "Finding Darwin's God". That's a curious title for a book having nothing to do with faith but only with evidence.

Funny how all these people lacking "faith" all seem to be religious. It's almost as though it requires faith to reject a well-established scientific theory.

"Well established scientific theory" I like that phrase. I agree with it. A "well established scientific theory" which may be replaced in this century with a better theory.

Thanks for not saying "well established scientific fact" beyond questioning and beyond challenges.

But unfortunately you can't quote anyone saying this, 'cos ... 'cos they're all invisible or something.

I don't know what you mean here. And I'm not sure you do either.

Yes. At least you don't have the gall to pretend that this applies to anyone you're debating.

The evidence which I think really should be there to demonstrate macro evolution occured is lacking.

Aside from that the idea is too preposterous for me to accept. When I look at Mount Rushmore I see something took place of which is a different nature then when I look at the Grand Canyon. If you asked me to believe that millions of years of erosion carved four human faces on the side of the mountian I would be skeptical. Adding more and more time would not help.

The grand canyon on the other hand I could not as easily ascribe to intelligent intervention.

The DNA code smacks of intelligent design. Actually a lot of things remind me of intelligent design. IF you want to believe that the scheme was blindly stumbled upon through random trial and error, you go ahead and believe that.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 7:33 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 8:37 AM jaywill has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 302 (372718)
12-29-2006 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by jaywill
12-29-2006 8:03 AM


Point me to where I can read the testimony.

What's the magic word?

Dover trial, transcript, day 12

Why should I assume he got trounced just because you say he did?

I made no such claim. I asked, and I quote:

If you didn't understand his argument, what makes you think it's a good one? Why do you think he's "in his element" debating with scientists when the debate is "too technical" for you to know whether he is, in fact, getting his butt kicked?"

You got that? You told me that you didn't understand the debate, and that he performed well in it. I am asking, if you didn't understand it, what makes you think he did well, besides his own claim to have done so?

Yea, the details of that exhange are beyond my knowledge. But I got the jest of it. Miller exaggerated according to Behe.

Which is as nothing compared with what Miller says about Behe. Oh, you mean "gist".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:22 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 261 of 302 (372719)
12-29-2006 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Dr Adequate
12-29-2006 8:17 AM


Thanks for the link.

And no, though a debate's technical details went over my head, I don't assume you can be trusted to inform me that your favored argument was the winner.

And attorneys get big bucks for the skill of getting people on the witness stand to say things to increminate themselves. That's their job. Add media hype and you can make a good case of propoganda for a lot of things.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 8:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 262 of 302 (372721)
12-29-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by jaywill
12-29-2006 8:17 AM


Miller called his defense of Evolution "Finding Darwin's God". That's a curious title for a book having nothing to do with faith but only with evidence.

But it's a splendid title for the book which Miller actually wrote, which is not, of course a "defense of Evolution".

"Well established scientific theory" I like that phrase. I agree with it. A "well established scientific theory" which may be replaced in this century with a better theory.

Thanks for not saying "well established scientific fact" beyond questioning and beyond challenges.

I would never pretend that a well-established scientific fact was "beyond questioning and beyond challenges", any more than I would pretend that the distinction between a fact and a theory is the degree of certainty with which they are known.

This is because I'm not a creationist propagandist; and because I like to know the meanings of words before I use them.

I don't know what you mean here. And I'm not sure you do either.

I mean that you cannot quote anyone maintaining the view which you have attributed to "many people"; that: "scientists [are] a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives". You say that "many people" believe this: can you quote one saying so?

The evidence which I think really should be there to demonstrate macro evolution occured is lacking.

I.e?

Aside from that the idea is too preposterous for me to accept. When I look at Mount Rushmore I see something took place of which is a different nature then when I look at the Grand Canyon. If you asked me to believe that millions of years of erosion carved four human faces on the side of the mountian I would be skeptical. Adding more and more time would not help.

No-one is asking you to believe that. I also find your false analogy "too preposterous to accept". But not so the theory of evolution, which does not correspond to your analogy.

The grand canyon on the other hand I could not as easily ascribe to intelligent intervention.

The DNA code smacks of intelligent design. Actually a lot of things remind me of intelligent design.

Which you detect how?

IF you want to believe that the scheme was blindly stumbled upon through random trial and error, you go ahead and believe that.

Trial and error is hardly a random process.

Have you ever wondered how real designers design? Did you read my post about genetic algorithms? Or here's a more hands-on metohd of trial and error, from James Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vaccuum cleaner:

You have to take the Edison approach: test, and test, and test until it works best ... there were questions about the positioning and size and shape of the exit point, and every other part of the thing, and all of them had to be answered by testing.

Slow, slow, slow. These things cannot be hurried. When you develop a prototype you have to change only one thing at a time. If you are really going to improve things, then you are going to have to be patient. Very patient.

Now if only his prototypes had reproduced with slight variation ...

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 8:17 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 263 of 302 (372723)
12-29-2006 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:02 PM


Hi Jaywill,

Here's the full text of Behe's article: A True Acid Test: Response to Ken Miller"

Behe begins by playing semantic games:

Thus, contrary to Miller's own criterion for "a true acid test," a multipart system was not "wiped out"--only one component of a multipart system was deleted.

Behe has somehow misinterpreted what Miller said, even though he quotes him verbatim. Miller never said that the intent of the experiment was to "wipe out" multiple components of a multipart system. Behe's claim about irreducible complexity is that removing just a single component of an irreducibly complex system will "wipe out" the function of the system. It is precisely this claim that Miller is addressing, and how Behe could misinterpret Miller to be saying that the experiment was intended to wipe out multiple components, given that this is not a claim of irreducible complexity and that it was Miller's specific intention to address the claims of irreducible complexity, is hard to understand.

Behe goes on to quote from a paper that is closely related to the one Miller is talking about:

Hall writes:

Adaptive mutations are mutations that occur in nondividing or slowly dividing cells during prolonged nonlethal selection, and that appear to be specific to the challenge of the selection in the sense that the only mutations that arise are those that provide a growth advantage to the cell. The issue of the specificity has been controversial because it violates our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations with respect to their effect on the cell. (Hall 1997)

This has nothing to do with Miller's argument about irreducible complexity. Miller pointed out that the supposedly irreducibly complex system was not actually irreducibly complex, because mutations had little difficulty finding alternative pathways to accomplish the original function. Behe replies by completely changing the subject from irreducible complexity to purposeful mutations, pointing out that Hall found that the necessary mutations happened far too fast to have occurred randomly. Perhaps Hall is onto something, I'd have to follow the literature trail which would be time-consuming, and you've already indicated you don't understand the technical side anyway, so I won't invest my time there. But Hall's paper was written in 1997, and had it eventually yielded results that supported ID then it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops, not only at the Dover trial last year but everywhere. That it wasn't indicates that Hall eventually found more mundane explanations for the unlikely mutations.

Behe concludes this portion of his rebuttal with more misdirection:

Behe writes:

The mechanism(s) of adaptive mutation are currently unknown. While they are being sorted out, it is misleading to cite results of processes which "violate our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations" to argue for Darwinian evolution, as Miller does.

But Miller wasn't arguing for Darwinian evolution in this part of his book. He was arguing against irreducible complexity. The Hall experiment is strong experimental results against irreducible complexity, and Behe never actually addresses Miller's argument.

As I read through Behe's response to Miller he says something that provides me an opportunity to make an important point about Behe:

Behe writes:

In a recent paper (Hall 1999) Professor Hall pointed out that both the lac and ebg B-galactosidase enzymes are part of a family of highly-conserved B-galactosidases, identical at 13 of 15 active site amino acid residues, which apparently diverged by gene duplication more than two billion years ago.

It's the last portion that's significant: "...apparently diverged by gene duplication more than two billion years ago."

Many creationists and IDists don't realize that Behe fully accepts descent with modification and natural selection. He fully accepts common descent of all life today from one or a few organisms a few billion years ago. He fully accepts the geologic column, the 4.56 billion year age of the earth, and the 13.7 billion year old universe. Where he differs with other biologists is in his belief that certain microbiological structures are irreducibly complex and could only have come about by purposeful design and not by the process of evolution that he otherwise accepts for all else in life.

In other words, and just to be absolutely clear, Behe accepts that the process of evolution produced most of what we see in life on earth today. It's just that he also believes some aspects of that life could only have been designed.

While Behe's argument against Miller's argument is somewhat technical, he's basically saying that redundancy in the bacteria's genetic code reduced the size of the evolutionary task, and this is, of course, true. The presence of redundancy made it possible for only a couple of small mutations to enable the bacteria to recover it's lost lac function. But that fact means the lac function is not irreducibly complex, since the process of evolution was able to reconstruct this lost function.

Behe also notes that Hall kept the bacteria alive by providing nutrients in the growth medium that would keep the bacteria alive, since it was no longer capable of sustaining itself without the lac function. This is absolutely true, but it also has nothing to do with irreducible complexity.

The problems with Behe's ideas about irreducible complexity are fatal. He's been unable to provide any research supportive of the idea, and those of his colleagues who have examined the idea by responding to what he has written in the popular press (e.g., Darwin's Black Box, et. al.) have found all his examples of supposed irreducible complexity wanting, from blood coagulation to eye evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:02 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 264 of 302 (372725)
12-29-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Adequate
12-29-2006 8:37 AM


But it's a splendid title for the book which Miller actually wrote, which is not, of course a "defense of Evolution".

Quoted reviewers:

“The first half of the book is really an apologetic for evolution …”

“Miller also shows that the complexity of the blood clotting mechanism, which Behe says is irreducibly complex, could be produced through successive stages. Miller also demonstrates that Behe's hypothesis that the original first 'Designed' cell had all its future complexity coded genetically but turned off was doomed to failure because of the accumulation of errors in unexpressed genes. Overall I would give a partial victory to Miller, but he does not manage to dismantle the challenge of irreducible complexity simply by giving examples of the generation of more complex systems from simple systems. “

“Miller's book debunks Behe and others as simply purveying bad science. It argues that merely because we haven't yet found clear evidence of an evolutionary mechanism at the cellular biochemical level doesn't mean we won't.”

“On a scientific level, he argues that the indeterminacy characteristic of the physical world, as established by the quantum theory, has been proven to also apply to biology at the molecular level through random genetic mutation which is unpredictable in principle. “

“It was... sort of. For the most part, this book just describes what evolution is, how it works, how we know it happens (and is happening), and why creationism, intelligent design and every other form of evolution denial is the most intellectully bankrupt, deceptive, pseudo-scientific enterprise out there. “

“First, Kenneth Miller, as an educator and celluar biologist, makes an excellent summary of the case for evolution. If someone does not understand that case or has never really seen all the evidence for evolutionary theory added all together, here it is, neatly summarized and clearly explained. “

Not a defense of Evolution ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 8:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 10:29 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 10:31 AM jaywill has not yet responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 265 of 302 (372726)
12-29-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Adequate
12-29-2006 8:37 AM


Trial and error is hardly a random process.

I know. Such words are usually associated with intelligent activity.

Same with words like "selection" which evolutionists use.


Have you ever wondered how real designers design? Did you read my post about genetic algorithms? Or here's a more hands-on metohd of trial and error, from James Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vaccuum cleaner:

I didn't read your comments on algorithms. But I know enough about algorithms to know that they are also usually designed and purposeful.

If you are a true Darwinist don't you propose a purposeless and blind process? There is no goal or purpose. Evolutionists usually jump all over me when I ask them what is the purpose or the goal of the process of Evolution. They insist that it has no mind, no goal, no purpose.

The activities you are speaking of now are those of intelligent intervention or design.


You have to take the Edison approach: test, and test, and test until it works best ... there were questions about the positioning and size and shape of the exit point, and every other part of the thing, and all of them had to be answered by testing.

A purposeless process is taking Edison's approach? Where did it get the "inspiration" ?

Edison said genius was 10% inspiration and 90% persperation. Are you saying that the process of Evolution was "inspired" like Edison? And then it worked hard for millions of years to realize that inspirational idea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 8:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 10:36 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 10:39 AM jaywill has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 266 of 302 (372728)
12-29-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:27 PM


Re: lieing
jaywill writes:

The phenomenon of bacteria which survive a bout with an antibiotic by adapting, while weaker ones died out, may be used to support micro evolution.

Macro evolution extrapolates on that concept to theorize the bacteria evolved into another type of organism.

My previous reply to you about Behe anticipates just this response. You apparently accept Behe on irreducible complexity, but reject Behe on macroevolution. Behe has good reasons for disagreeing with you. Behe's analytical skills may be compromised by his religious beliefs when it comes to a tiny area of biology concerned with microbiological processes (which in a wild coincidence (:rolleyes:) just happens to be his research specialty), but his grasp of the evidence for evolution is sound.

Some evolutionists want to blur the distinction so that weak evidence for macro evolution can be made to appear stronger than it really is, i.e. that is for one type of organism evolving over long periods of time into another type of organism.

The question isn't so much whether it happens, but how in the world you would stop it from happening. Speciation is not a step function where one day a pheasant hatches a duck. It's a continuous process made up of many, many tiny steps. Ring species, which is the term used for a series of species across adjacent geographic regions whose change is slight between adjacent regions and so can almost be considered the same species, but species at opposite ends of the geographic chain are not at all similar, are an excellent example of this. This gradual change of a species across geography is analogous to the gradual change of a species over time. There is no precise point at which one species becomes another.

Almost every reproductive act is imperfect. In other words, almost every offspring contains mutations that make its genetic makeup slightly different from its parents. There is no way to prevent this. Over time these changes accumulate and the genetic makeup of a species *will* change. The degree of that change is a function of environmental stability. If the environment is very stable and the organism is already well adapted, then mutations that are expressed will likely be selected against and disappear, but some mutations will accumulate anyway, which is a factor in genetic drift.

These are mostly games with words to gain a advantage in the prose and in the rhetoric when evidence is lacking. Proof for micro evolution is extrapolated to appear to prove macro evolution.

This is a common misconception among creationists. Put simply, the evidence for macroevolution is apparent by combining the evidence from a) the nested hierarchy of existing life; b) the nested hierarchy of life recorded in the fossil record that is completely consistent with existing life; c) dating of the fossil record; d) comparative DNA analysis of current life that finds consistency with all the evidence from the areas already mentioned.

Besides having no positive evidence, ID is contradicted by the existing evidence in a couple important ways. First, but only for those who believe the designer is God, the fossil record of changing life over time indicates that God is learning as he goes along, gradually developing new designs that he periodically releases into living form. A God who learns as he goes is probably not consistent with most evangelical's view of God.

And second, but more importantly, the propagation of design innovations would create a completely different history from the one we see in the fossil record. The fossil record reflects a nested hierarchy in that innovations from one branch of life do not find their way over into other branches of life. This is completely different from the record that would be left by design innovation, where new innovations would be expected to propagate helter-skelter throughout all of life. For example, warm-bloodedness is a wonderful innovation that enables creatures to prosper in wider extremes of environment, but somehow this innovation did not find its way into the reptiles. Evidence of innovation crossing branches of life would be strong evidence for ID, but such evidence is completely absent.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:27 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 267 of 302 (372732)
12-29-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:43 PM


jaywill writes:

With many people it is dogma even of a religious kind. It requires I think a huge amount of "faith". For lack of a better word I use the word "faith".

Some people do not have enough of this faith to believe the claims of a Dawkins or a Ken Miller.

Well, now you're just casting unsupported aspersions. I wish you and Dr Adequate would drop out of "one-liner" mode.

This is not the place to get into a discussion of the nature of science. Suffice to say that this thread is about an engineering approach to ID, and engineering is the practical application of scientific principles, and science is based upon evidence. If you're unaware of the evidence for evolution then in the appropriate thread we can describe it to you at any level of detail you feel comfortable with. But...

And in this technological age many people view scientists as a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives.

Given the indispensable role science plays in engineering, this isn't a view consistent with claiming that ID reflects engineering principles. You're in essence arguing against the premise of this thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:43 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 268 of 302 (372733)
12-29-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by johnfolton
12-28-2006 11:35 PM


Re: common sense?
Charley writes:

Vitamin B17 is found naturally in many foods...Consider it nature's cancer prevention.

Please, anyone out there with cancer or concerns about cancer, be sure to seek professional medical help. Do not waste time on folk or quack remedies, the consequences of delay are too drastic to consider.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2006 11:35 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2006 11:53 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 2:42 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 269 of 302 (372738)
12-29-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by jaywill
12-29-2006 9:40 AM


jaywill writes:

Quoted reviewers:

“The first half of the book is really an apologetic for evolution …”...

Uh, were you going to let anyone know that your quotes are from the Amazon page for Finding Darwin's God, and that the reviews you quote are from readers, not from scientists from either side of the debate? You're not only using the fallacy of argument from authority, you're doing it with non-authorities! :eek:

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:40 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 270 of 302 (372739)
12-29-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by jaywill
12-29-2006 9:40 AM


Quoted reviewers:

“The first half of the book is really an apologetic for evolution …”

“It was... sort of. For the most part, this book just describes what evolution is, how it works, how we know it happens (and is happening), and why creationism, intelligent design and every other form of evolution denial is the most intellectully bankrupt, deceptive, pseudo-scientific enterprise out there. “

First, Kenneth Miller, as an educator and celluar biologist, makes an excellent summary of the case for evolution. If someone does not understand that case or has never really seen all the evidence for evolutionary theory added all together, here it is, neatly summarized and clearly explained. “

I'm not sure what the other quotes are for.

The subtitle of the book is "A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution". Don't you think "Finding Darwin's God" is a good title for a book with that subtitle?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:40 AM jaywill has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019