Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006
|
I was noticing the Swamidass matter, too. He says:
Quote | I will comment finally on a quote that brought a smile to my face, and spring to my step.
“Swamidass: I do not think atheists have an indisputable case against [ID]. Though, to be honest, [their] math is usually more solidly worked out”
“Jerry: This is nonsense. I am sorry. They have no math!! If they do then present it or at least describe it and its logical implications. I would be very interested in that. You would be the first person to ever try that here.”
You forget with whom you are speaking. This is my area of expertise. I do not assess the field by reading pop culture books. I read the primary literature. I have 20 years of experience in science and have read thousands of papers on this topic, from every viewpoint and side of the issue. If I say something exists that you do not know about, maybe, just maybe, I am right.
It turns out that there are hundreds of mathematical modeling papers published each month that are directly relevant to this discussion. This is vast area of work, that is mathematically rigorous and has consistently produced knowledge about how biological systems function in the present, not just the past. My specific expertise, by the way, is just one relatively small subfield in a gigantic discipline. I can only smile when you say: “This is nonsense. I am sorry. They have no math!!”
My meta-question is, how is that you do not know about a vast body of work that is directly relevant to the questions you find most important in science? |
Oh, I don't know how he might not know about it, perhaps because Jerry's an IDist, reads UD, and read what VJTorley wrote in the past, like:
Quote | May I suggest that in future, when engaging with Darwinists, we force them to confront these two questions:
1. Why do you scoff at the notion of an Intelligent Designer, when even your own brand of evolution relies on a Turing Oracle to make it work, in current mathematical models? Isn’t that a Designer smuggled in via the back door? 2. Where’s your evidence that Darwinian evolution can generate the diversity of life-forms we find on Earth today, in the time available? Current modeling suggests that it cannot.
Thoughts, anyone? And now, over to you. |
At last a Darwinist mathematician tells the truth about evolution
Uh, yeah, like that's what's at stake, not the probabilities against a "Darwinian" ordering arising without "Darwinian" evolution actually accounting for it.
The real question I have now, though, is Torley close to actually getting it by now? He used to write basically the same creationist canards as the rest of the UD think-tank, only with a more educated grammar and vocabulary, and now he's defending someone who actually makes a great deal of sense against the more rabid and stupid there. Someone who points out that there's very good mathematical modeling done in evolutionary biology, not so much with ID.
I have to advise Torley to keep it stupid, or he may end up being banned.
Glen Davidson
-------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|