Ftk
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 26 2008,10:32) | Ftk, now that you are back, and since you claim to have tired of the personal attacks that so often characterize this debate (although your posts above suggest otherwise), you'll want to address yourself to this:
| Quote (Ftk @ June 20 2008,08:05) | LOL...Bill, you're so terribly deluded. Funny, I don't see you answering any of the half dozen or so questions posed in that post. Have at it, hon.
I've never met a group of folks so blinded by their ideology. If you truly think that the ToE is a solid "fact" or that molecule to man has an vital impact on scientific research, you're living in you're own little dream world. It probably feels safe for you there...you don't have to contemplate that big ugly 'ol creator you're so angry with for some reason or other.
Oh, btw, thanks for the spell check. I know I can always count on you guys!! |
Ftk:
First, I'd be interested in your response to my observation that most advocates of ID - both those who accept common descent (Behe) and those who don't (e.g. Dembski) - consider the question of design to be orthogonal to the question of descent, yet you put them into opposition. One must choose: either common descent, or intelligent design. Why?
Second, you argue, essentially, that ongoing research in biology can continue indefinitely, and wouldn't be materially changed, whether that research was conducted within the larger framework of common descent or that of common design.
But you haven't responded to my original objection, upthread: The scientific object of keen interest to many biologists, and probably everyone posting here, is exactly the origins and history of the biological diversity we observe today. The structure of that history, both in broad outline and with respect to the development of high resolution histories of particular species (including our own), IS the object of that science. Moreover, the question of whether that history reflects common design or common descent is no undecidable, abstract philosophical question. Rather, there is a particular set of facts that obtained during that history, those facts had empirical consequences - in the distribution of features observed within extant species, within the fossil record, and within the the distribution of features found within the genomes of all living organisms - and evolutionary science is all about developing and attaining an integrated conceptual understanding of those empirical facts. Models premised upon common descent provide both deep predictive guidance for investigation into those empirical facts and an overarching conceptual framework in light of which those facts may be understood. Progress within that field is both breathtaking and accelerating, and integrates beautifully with and derives synergy from the findings within other sciences, e.g. geology.
Common design, which postulates that a designer planted species throughout history like a gardener placing garden gnomes, forces the conclusion that species bear NO relationship to one another - hierarchical, historical, or otherwise (yeah yeah, "microevolution," blah blah blah). Within the "framework" of common design, a fish is no more or less related to a terrestrial vertebrate than it is to a rose. Common design provides no guidance for empirical work either in the lab or in the field, has no predictive power, is absolutely silent and completely useless in the context of developing high resolution models of the histories of specific biological groups, and offers no connections to the other sciences.
Your repeated observation that some investigation can proceed without paying particular attention to the reality of common descent is certainly accurate, but it is also irrelevant. It is rather like arguing that the fact that I can get around Ohio just fine using a road map without attending to whether the earth is flat or a sphere shows that our current model of the shape of our planet is a mere philosophical nicety with no important conceptual or empirical consequences. That would be absurd; while it may have no direct bearing on my planning for a particular trip from Cleveland to Columbus, our contemporary understanding of the globe, and its larger place in nature, is the overarching framework within which I situate my understanding of the map I use to navigate that trip, that integrates my map of Ohio with Louis' map of London, and that integrates all of those local maps with our collective understanding of the dynamic relationship of the earth to the sun and solar system. Similarly, while some medical and biological research may be pursued without having to directly integrate the facts of common descent into one's particular procedures and observations, the fact remains that our broader recognition of common descent (and our understanding of deep time, earth history, etc) stands as an overarching framework into which all of those empirical specifics can be integrated, provides powerful conceptual tools that enable one to relate disparate findings, and situates biological facts within the larger edifice of earth's history.
That's worth having.
[minor edits for clarity, and also to create sentences in English, and also because I just can't leave a post alone. And to add garden gnomes.]
(The earth is a sphere.) |
Bill, it may surprise you to know that I have a response to your post simmering in microsoft. I decided to set it aside until the loons wandered away from my thread. I was going to post it yesterday, but I got distracted at my blog.
It's a rough draft, so I have to go back and look it over before I post it.
Unfortunately, dave decided to return to his BS about me, so I'll let the loony faction thin out a bit, and then I'll post it.
--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero
|
