|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Labor Day morning reading /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1567428901 Message started by WebsterMark on 09/02/19 at 05:55:01 |
|
Title: Labor Day morning reading Post by WebsterMark on 09/02/19 at 05:55:01 From Manhattan Contrarian. I have the book mentioned below by Stephen Miller but haven't read ot yet. David Gelernter Takes On Darwinism August 30, 2019/ Francis Menton David Gelernter is one of a small number of people in the world whom I would characterize as a genuine independent thinker. But then, I would say that, given that he’s one of the few conservatives on the faculty of Yale, where he is a professor of computer science. He has written widely, often outside his primary field, including on things like culture and art criticism. He was famously severely injured in 1993 by a bomb sent by the Unabomber. As an example of the extent to which he truly doesn’t care what his academic peers think of him, he wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in October 2016 supporting Trump for President (or, perhaps more accurately, stating that the only way to protect the country from the disaster of Hillary was to vote for Trump). In the Spring 2019 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, Gelernter steps on another super-high-voltage third rail — Darwinism. Moreover, he does it in the context of writing what is essentially a favorable review of a 2013 book titled “Darwin’s Doubt” by a guy named Stephen Meyer. Meyer is one of the leading promoters of the counter-theory to Darwinism called “intelligent design,” as can be seen in the subtitle of Meyer’s book: “The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.” I doubt that there is any more reviled guy in the field of origin of species than Meyer. (First line of Meyer’s Wikipedia bio: “Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.”) Nasty! So what has inspired Gelernter to take this one on? Before getting to Gelernter’s comments on Darwinism, let me give some background on where this fits into the themes of this blog. “Science” (correctly understood) is the process by which we attempt to make sense of our world on its own terms, by what we can observe, test, and measure. Science starts from what is called a “falsifiable hypothesis,” and then proceeds through a process of experiment or empirical test to see if the hypothesis survives. Keep this up long enough, and eventually you figure out things like how to cure infectious disease, or how to make plastics out of petroleum. But there may be some things that can never be satisfactorily explained by the processes of science. In this context, the Darwinian theory that species originate through a process of “natural selection” fits well into the rubric of “science.” The hypothesis is subject to invalidation; and much evidence going to the validity of the hypothesis has been collected. “intelligent design,” by contrast, is a classic example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore is not science. Nothing that we can observe, test or measure can ever prove or disprove whether there is an intelligent being behind the scenes directing the results. That said, our world is filled with non-science things in which many people place credence. Astrology is a common example. Just because something is not science does not mean that it is wrong. As another example, I would say that the field of psychology is also rife with non-falsifiable hypotheses, at least non-falsifiable by any methodology currently available. As another example, the field of climate “science” aggressively claims the mantle of science, while simultaneously striving mightily to avoid ever articulating a falsifiable hypothesis. So-called “climate scientists” also engage in the anti-scientific exercise of rampant data alteration, but that’s another story. In the line-drawing between science and non-science, Darwinism claims a special status. The defenders of Darwinism are the ones who famously stood up to the small-minded anti-science religious fundamentalists. As we were all taught back in high school, in the years after Darwin advanced his then-revolutionary hypothesis of natural selection, he was opposed by religious fanatics whose main objection was that Darwin’s hypothesis contradicted the Biblical origin story in Genesis. After the state of Tennessee banned teaching of Darwinian evolution in 1925, a teacher named Scopes defied the law, and got prosecuted by the state. And the small-minded rubes were then shown for the idiots they were by the brilliant Clarence Darrow. Or something like that. (In fact, Scopes was convicted at trial, but his punishment was reversed on appeal.) Back to Gelernter. He begins his piece by correctly taking note that today, acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution is tantamount to an entry key into polite society: Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But the problem is that the Darwinian hypothesis is not just that “evolution occurred,” but rather that there is a specific mechanism — known as “natural selection” — by which new species have emerged from old and have proliferated, by which single-celled bacteria have gradually evolved into fish and birds and humans. And unfortunately, the ongoing accumulation of evidence, both from the fossil record and from molecular biology, has not been kind to the hypothesized mechanism of natural selection. First, as to the fossil record: In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago. Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk. But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Over on the micro-biology side, Gelernter points out that research attempting to find gene mutations that could successfully change one type of animal body plan to another has come up completely dry. To help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal. They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce. . . . Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal. . . . The philosopher of biology Paul Nelson summarizes the body-plan problem: “Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years—research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework—has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false—and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.” In other words, if you have come to believe that evolution according to the Darwinian hypothesis is firmly established in science, prepare to have your preconceptions shaken up. Live by the scientific method, die by the scientific method. Of course, just because Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism is falsified does not mean that Meyer’s alternative answer — “intelligent design” — must be accepted. As a non-scientific non-falsifiable hypothesis, “intelligent design” cannot be either proven or disproven. You can believe it or not, as you wish. Is there another potential falsifiable hypothesis out there as to the mechanism by which all these species may have evolved from the bacteria? Not that I’m aware of. That does not mean that it won’t emerge, but a good century and a half after Darwin, there’s no sign of it. There just may be some things that science is never going to explain. Origin of species may be one of them. Origin of the universe is likely to be another. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 06:35:40 I've read both this book and Signature in the Cell. I think there are two primary issues I have with the book. The process of research is rather selective, as in he won't reference information in full, and in many cases assumes our assessment will match his. For instance genes can randomly mutate to form functional proteins and useful genes. There is ample peer-reviewed research on this topic. I recommend reading The Greatest Show on Earth as well, unless one is already assuming ID is the only option then don't waste your time. To me, "Evolution can't do it", is not evidence that any other process can. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by WebsterMark on 09/02/19 at 06:43:41 To me, "Evolution can't do it", is not evidence that any other process can. I think that’s exactly what he said, isn’t it? |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 07:46:45 Gelernter yes, Miller not so much. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by raydawg on 09/02/19 at 07:52:03 It gets pretty heady trying to understand this stuff..... Why, because we all have preconceived notions and bias, we can't help it, its the way our brain works. Not a one of us can read/research, topics like this with a mind like a blank sheet of paper, just can't. We have already invested thought into the subject, that is why we want to delve into it. Who of us is so wired they can honestly state, beyond a shadow of doubt they investigate/research such topics to PROVE themselves wrong? We gather life, in all its facets, tidbits, through experiences and trust deferred. Through discernment, trying, and factoring in its use, as to how, and what, we feel that we need in our collective lives, to be able to reach that certain nirvana, enlightenment....a preconceived notion...... ;) This is where societies get into trouble, and where both ends of a "plane of spectrum" clash.....and I guess we could say those not beholden to the threshold of either extreme, try and find that balance of fulcrum..... Calling it normal :) I believe man lacks the capacity to know, merely because no one knows with certainty, the ending of life. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 13:31:07 "Not a one of us can read/research, topics like this with a mind like a blank sheet of paper, just can't." What if someone doesn't care either way? For instance someone who isn't religious, and also does not care where man comes from. If they were told we came from a stork in the sky, that's cool. The world still rotates, there's still coffee in the morning and beer in the evening. The absence of any fundamental questions regarding human history, psychology or self-awareness makes for a pretty neutral outlook on how humans got to where they are today. I notice this in a lot of high-school aged kids. Ones with no religious influence and are drop-outs tend to have no investment in the history of man, mostly because they have, in my mind, a clearer understanding that the only thing they have is the future. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by raydawg on 09/02/19 at 16:16:48 What if someone doesn't care either way? Then most likely they would not "care to engage", why waste energy or time on something that has no interest or value....that makes no sense For instance someone who isn't religious, and also does not care where man comes from. If they were told we came from a stork in the sky, that's cool. The world still rotates, there's still coffee in the morning and beer in the evening. I think you can do with a better analogy, a person might want beer in the morning, and coffee in the evening.....WHICH, comes back to personal preference.... The absence of any fundamental questions regarding human history, psychology or self-awareness makes for a pretty neutral outlook on how humans got to where they are today. I notice this in a lot of high-school aged kids. Dude....you just assigned YOUR opinion, based of observation, which is NOT neutral, because you give these kids a more assigned value based on your OWN convictions...... Ones with no religious influence and are drop-outs tend to have no investment in the history of man, mostly because they have, in my mind, a clearer understanding that the only thing they have is the future. No body knows the FUTURE.....none are guaranteed of it, nor is the past a precursor, as context is everything....like pulling down Confederate statues does NOT change history, nor guarantee slavery will never impact a race again..... All ANYBODY has is the moment, and its only for a moment, and the moments....gone ;D ;D ;D Dude, you put your pants on just like everyone else. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 17:03:34 "Then most likely they would not "care to engage", why waste energy or time on something that has no interest or value....that makes no sense." If I do not care much about cooking I am most likely not going to tune into the food channel, however the chance exists that I may be asked what type of foods I like, do I cook at home, which restaurant I prefer to go to, etc. So while I may not care to engage I would still answer questions related to food preparation. I am basing this assessment off of questioning, such as "Why are we here?" or "Are Religion and Evolution mutually exclusive?" or "If human recorded history was erased today, would science and religion redevelop the same way?" etc. "I think you can do with a better analogy, a person might want beer in the morning, and coffee in the evening.....WHICH, comes back to personal preference...." Or not like either. Input any two items in any order and yes, personal preference but it does not indicate that there must be an equal amount of preference assigned to each item. The point was that the sun rises tomorrow whether I know where humans come from or not. Or one could say the sun sets today. My life will continue without having interest, or even knowledge of past human existence. Unless of course I die. "Dude....you just assigned YOUR opinion, based of observation, which is NOT neutral, because you give these kids a more assigned value based on your OWN convictions...... " I'm not sure I understand. If I observe more Red Cars in my neighborhood than Green Cars it is my opinion based off of observation. However I am not assigning a value to those cars, it is strictly an observation. In my life, I have observed more high school aged kids care less about human history than adults. Gradeschool kids even less so. So to clarify I mean I have witnessed more high-school kids than adults over 18 that don't have an opinion regarding human evolution or creation. Typically they just don't care, they have other things on their minds. I for one do not care. My assessment is I exist because I was born and that's good enough for me. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by raydawg on 09/02/19 at 17:33:28 Why do you even think we give a frig about the cars in your neighborhood? ;) You replied to Web, then me...because you felt some need, or desire, as we all do, but you can't say it makes no difference if we agree, or not, you posted because it had some value and meaning to YOU.... And yes, regardless some will be drinking beer when the sun rises tomorrow ;D OK....I'm done, this puppy is over. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 19:43:38 "Why do you even think we give a frig about the cars in your neighborhood?" I don't. I was attempting to use Green and Red cars in my respective neighborhood as an example of observation. The cars can be interchanged freely with any object, idea, place, or theory. There is no inference that anyone have a personal interest or emotional investment in the comparable items listed. "You replied to Web, then me...because you felt some need, or desire, as we all do, but you can't say it makes no difference if we agree, or not, you posted because it had some value and meaning to YOU" I didn't say it makes no difference if we agree. However I am not sure that it does given this is only a discussion on a motorcycle forum. I had a question specifically for you about one sentence. That question is what about the third party out there? The ones that don't care where humans came from. It was indicated "we all have preconceived notions and bias" I think it is possible, no matter what the subject matter, for humans to not have a pre-conceived notion or bias on a subject. For instance I do not have a pre-conceived notion or bias about gluten free diets. What makes the topic in this thread different? |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by raydawg on 09/02/19 at 20:26:38 Ok....out of respect, I will answer you, then I really am done with the thread, its like the question...."Ginger or Maryann?" Beating this around, is like saying there are no absolutes...... We all view the world through our own unique prism, no two alike. Here, let me try this analogy: You and I climb to this very high peak....we can see for miles and miles, and miles, the horizon seems endless. We are standing shoulder to shoulder, casting our glances off into that view. Tho we stand as close as humanly possible, our views are not the same, each one, just by that extremely small physical separation, see things the other can not see from our advantage point. Yes, it would be very hard to discern the difference, but that does not remove the fact, we are not standing in the exact same spot at the same moment of time. Ok buddy....I am through, this is just one of those things where everyone is right, or everyone is wrong ;) |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 21:31:41 I must not have structured my question appropriately. "Why, because we all have preconceived notions and bias, we can't help it, its the way our brain works." Is it plausible that there are topics that a human can be questioned about and that human will have no preconceived notion or bias? I think it's possible, through personal observation, that humans can have topics presented to them that they are either completely unaware of, no have no interest in. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by WebsterMark on 09/03/19 at 05:08:21 The questions of eternity, where we come from, how did we get here, is there such a thing as an enduring human soul have been asked and will continue to be asked as long as human beings exist. I suggest it's impossible to contemplate not the questions but the meaning of the answers, even from a scientific point of view, without bias. Humans alone have the capacity for love, all encompassing empathy, for sacrifice that's unique, as far as we know, in this universe. Every human has a sense of an eternal existence. That is significant, it means something. There's nothing wrong with exploring the science behind ID. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by verslagen1 on 09/03/19 at 08:54:29 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
You must be a cat person, because if you had a dog you'd know that isn't true. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by WebsterMark on 09/03/19 at 09:29:05 I hate cats, love dogs. But, they're animals. There is a massive chasm between humans and the most highly developed animal. The distance between the two sides is unbridgeable. There is nothing on this earth or has ever been on this earth remotely close to humans. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by raydawg on 09/03/19 at 10:39:08 6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:
I guess if you are a zombie....you can, however, and Web sorta alluded to this with his mention of love.... Homo sapiens seem to be the creation most capable of having emotions.... These emotions weigh heavily on our discerning abilities, as we can see how emotions have the capacity to cause much hate and grief, when put into overt actions..... But on the other end of that spectrum, they can create empathy, nurturing, and caring...or love, the opposite of hate. We use instincts, on deciding many things, without having to use emotions, to reach a understanding, for instance, coming in out of the weather..... If we were to allow evolution to decide, then it would provide us with gills/scales, or fur. Another avenue to discernment is accessed through tradition. What has worked for others, in the past. I think all things work to find their comfort zone, the path to least resistance, both physically, and spiritually.....and that can indeed be seen in nature, or naturally..... Reacting in a manner to influences, that come into our lives. As in, a rain drop finds its way back to the cloud, from which it came..... Be it running down a mountain side as a stream to the ocean, or back through evaporation before it ever hits the ground..... Who knows the cycle of life....??? Not I, that is for sure, I can guess, that is all. We can weigh possibilities, and depending on who is looking for a answer, can promote their own findings as the best possibility..... Everything else is just, dust in the wind......nothing new to be ascertained, tho asked by new generations, the answer is unattainable to mankind, no matter how smart he thinks he is ;) |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/03/19 at 13:49:13 "I guess if you are a zombie....you can, however, and Web sorta alluded to this with his mention of love...." I'm not posing my question appropriately. I am not talking about a human with disabilities. Can a human who is not altered to a point of unawareness to their environment, not a vegetable, of age and mental capacity that allows for communication and abstract thought process be questioned about a topic and that human will have no preconceived notion or bias? Very specifically why does is a human required, as in must, develop a pre-conceived notion or bias about this subject? Or are you saying that any and all subjects ever presented will have a pre-conceived notion or bias? For instance I have no pre-conceived notion or bias about the circulatory system of freshwater eels. When asked of this I have no reason to be bias about any debate regarding how a freshwater eel circulates blood. I don't see what it is about this topic that mandates one formulate a pre-conceived notion or bias. It's literally only a question about where humans might have come from. |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by verslagen1 on 09/03/19 at 14:07:36 7454565E4354310 wrote:
One would wonder why you thought eels had blood. Was it a pre-conceived notion? |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by raydawg on 09/03/19 at 14:55:10 4F5C4B4A55585E5C5708390 wrote:
One would wonder why you thought eels had blood. Was it a pre-conceived notion?[/quote] PERECT......!!! The reason you have no bias about a eel, is because.....you find no need, or interest, in the eel, itself....which you must have arrived at that decision, based on some form of reasoning, you just didn't fart in out your butt, did you? Now Versy surely finds the eel of interest to him, that is why he replied..... But again, that is my own belief/opinion, stating that...... He might not care one twit about the eel itself, no, but finds long, skinny, slimy objects shaped in this manner, his tang...... :o Well Versy? |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by Eegore on 09/03/19 at 15:12:49 "One would wonder why you thought eels had blood. Was it a pre-conceived notion? " Again I offer an example that doesn't clearly exemplify my question but that's ok, I am incapable at this time of presenting the question in a way that clarifies that a human without disabilities can be asked a question about a topic they do not know about. So by pre-conceived notion you mean any knowledge of a topic at all? As in a question about the origin of man has a pre-conceived notion because one is aware that there is time prior to the question and that humans existed in that time? I was interpreting pre-conceived notion as having a conceptual idea about a topic without evidence being presented about that topic prior to questioning. As in I am aware of eels, I am aware that they may or may not have blood, but am not aware that there is a debate about the way their circulatory system works. When I am asked if I think their circulatory system works through Method A, or through Method B, my pre-conceived notion is limited to knowledge that eels exist and nothing more. I can create a bias based off of my knowledge of other animals, but why "Must" I do so? And why would I have done that prior to knowledge of the debate to begin with? Why would it be a requirement? Why can I not have an opinion, or a bias prior to questioning and after being questioned say "F uck I don't know" or "Why would I care?" |
|
Title: Re: Labor Day morning reading Post by verslagen1 on 09/03/19 at 15:36:23 7C5C5E564B5C390 wrote:
I think you're misquoting the scientific process. See something, state a hypothesis, experiment to see if the hypothesis is correct. A pre-conceived notion is simply a hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with a pre-conceived notion. If you see a snake on the ground, you chop it up and it bleeds all over the place. You know it has blood. You see an eel, you hypothesize it has blood, you put a spear thru it, it bleeds... qed. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |