RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (663) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,15:00   

<I>Your being so ready and willing to dispose of certain questions, such as “why are we here” by just declaring “we do not know” and merrily walk away from the issue, in contrast to other questions where theories are called upon to explain phenomena, betrays the artifical restriction on science I spoke of.

If Darwin would have applied the same attitude to the issue of the origin of the species, he would have just declared “they are just here” and “we do not know” and moved on to other things. The point of science is not to walk away from issues by shrugging our shoulders and declaring that we just do not know.

So why the selective application of this approach on the part the scientific community? I claim it is due to the big elephant lurking behind certain issues, a monster many prefer not to face.</I>

That's exactly correct and was the whole point of Lynn Margulis hard line against "neodarwinians".  You don't call your peers "neodarwinian bullies" as the honered guest speaker at the last evoloutionary conference simply because you're having a normal dispute with them.  Lynn's was a direct shot at the form of fanaticism vs antifanaticism that leads to the willful denial of evidence via their own brand of how they are willing to interpret evidence.

Notice that PvM has now resorted to appeals to comparitively lame authority, trying to dig up lame dirt, rather than to admit that I've made a single valid point, which I can seriously back-up with hard physics that he can't begin to understand, so he avoids it like the plague.

This is highly common to the whole neodarwinistic mentality that causes the judge in dover to admit that there may be a scientific point that IDists are not motivated to make.  It's the same mentality that causes them to contuously and falsely leap to assume and call me, an atheist, a creationist.

This cannot happen without a whole bunch of pre-conceived prejudice behind it, because I never argue for ID, nor for supernatural entities.  Einstein and others have had a very similar purposefullly structured worldview as mine from the physics of relativity as applied to the structuring of the observed universe without uncertainty.  It is not at all out of the realm of science, but the willful denial of evidence for it is highly prevelant within the evobiolgy community.

I interpret from the physics what Leonard Susskind sees as a scientist when he says that "the appearance of design is undeniable"... the difference being that I know that it can't be about ID if the landscape fails.

It's a valid scientific interpretation, whether PvM or anybody else here wants to admit it, or not, and so I don't really care what happens here, since they continue to typically ignore the valid points, while attacking only perceived weaknesses.

How greenScience is that?... lol

  19887 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (663) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]