OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 23 2012,09:48) | | Quote | [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/it-seems-that-tsz-objector-to-design-af-insists-on-the-long-since-corrected-canard-that-de
sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434245]kairosfocus[/URL]: UD PRO-DARWINISM ESSAY CHALLENGE: Compose your summary case for darwinism (or any preferred variant that has at least some significant support in the professional literature, such as punctuated equlibria etc) in a fashion that is accessible to the non-technical reader — based on empirical evidence that warrants the inference to body plan level macroevolution — in up to say 6,000 words {a chapter in a serious paper is often about that long}. Outgoing links are welcome so long as they do not become the main point. That is, there must be a coherent essay, with
| Quote | (i)an intro,
(ii) a thesis,
(iii) a structure of exposition,
(iv) presentation of empirical warrant that meets the inference to best current empirically grounded explanation test for scientific reconstructions of the remote past,
(v) a discussion and from that
(vi) a warranted conclusion. |
Your primary objective should be to show in this way, per IBCE, why there is no need to infer to design from the root of the Darwinian tree of life on up (BTW, it will help to find a way to resolve the various divergent trees), on grounds that the Darwinist explanation, as extended to include OOL, is adequate to explain origin and diversification of the tree of life. A second objective of like level is to show how your thesis is further supported by such evidence as suffices to warrant the onward claim that is is credibly the true or approximately true explanation of origin and body-plan level diversification of life; on blind watchmaker style chance variation plus differential reproductive success, starting with some plausible pre-life circumstance. It would be helpful if in that essay you would outline why alternatives such as design, are inferior on the evidence we face. {as an initial spark for thinking, contrast my own survey of origins science here on (note the onward resources page), the definition of design theory in the UD resources tab top of this and every UD page, the Weak Argument correctives in the same tab, the general resources that pop up on clicking the tab itself, and the discussion of design theory in the NWE article here. You may also want to refer to the site of the IDEA Center, and the Discovery Institute CSC site as well as Mike Gene's Telic Thoughts. Notice IDEA's essay on the case for design here.}
|
Could start with Darwin's Origin of Species. It's dated, but still a powerful argument. What Darwin considered an abstract is still too long at 190,000 words (6th edition). |
I could list about a hundred books that fit that bill. Your INner FIsh being one of the better ones.
Seriously, that's one of the problems with creationists. They are asking for evidence for things that have been support so well that no one worries about them anymore. Civil engineers don't have to derive F=m*a in every paper they write or design they create. Astronomers don't have to derive the gravitational constant in every paper they write. Those things are settled.
Just like evolution. No one argues about evolution. Now there is some discussion over various parts of evolution, but even if one side "wins", that doesn't fundamentally change the mechanics, processes, or facts of evolution.
Sigh... do they have libraries in Montserrat? Does Gordon know how to read... he knows how to write. Or maybe that's just a case of a few monkeys in a few weeks (instead of infinite monkeys in infinite time).
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
