tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4038135520823040297..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: James Shapiro Cries Foul: “I was outraged”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34220111369180414392013-12-25T06:09:22.904-08:002013-12-25T06:09:22.904-08:00Scott: An explanation is an assertion about how th...Scott: An explanation is an assertion about how the world works, which explains the seen, but is itself, unseen. <br /><br />J: The assertion or assertions that explain do something quite specific. They IMPLY deductively what is observed, at least with some impressive degree of statistical accuracy. I assure you, Scott, there are NO such assertions known to humanity that explain/imply ANY naturalistic or non-naturalistic or reductionist or non-reductionist UCA genealogical history of terrestrial organisms. But feel free to post them here when you find them or tell us where to access them.<br /><br />Scott: Knowledge grows though a process of trial and error. <br /><br />J: In your epistemology, knowledge is indistinguishable from anti-knowledge, because you deny the reality of POSITIVE evidence and WARRANTED belief.<br /><br />Scott: On the other hand, ID's designer serves no explanatory purpose.<br /><br />J: A big D designer is posited to explain the existence of WARRANTED belief and/or the existence of POSITIVE evidence. Positing various little D designers for this or that design feature is as predictively worthless, thus far, as is the mere story-telling that biologists have done for 150 years.<br /><br />Scott: The idea that all scientific explanations should be reductionist in nature, including those for any UCA tree, is an implicit criteria that you have not disclosed or argued for. <br /><br />J: There is NO humanly known explanation for ANY UCA tree. You simply don't understand what it means to explain. It is to state enough propositions to IMPLY the relevant observations. No one has done that a-teleologically Scott. Reductionism has nothing to do with it.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12257416586935610552013-12-24T21:28:53.479-08:002013-12-24T21:28:53.479-08:00An explanation is an assertion about how the world...An explanation is an assertion about how the world works, which explains the seen, but is itself, unseen. Good explanations consist of long chains of independently conceived assertions which are hard to vary without significantly reducing it's ability to explain the phenomena in question. <br /><br />Any specific UCA tree is a specific evolutionary history which, as I've pointed out elsewhere, starts out as a conjecture. As such, we expect it to contain errors and be incomplete. We make progress when we find errors in such a history. <br /><br />Yet, many people here seem to think merely finding a particular history in error or incomplete is fatal for the theory. So, apparently, the underlying conflict here is based on different conceptions of human knowledge and how such knowledge grows. <br /><br />Evolutionary theory falls under the umbrella of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. Knowledge grows though a process of trial and error. <br /><br />On the other hand, ID's designer serves no explanatory purpose. It makes the same mistake in assuming the designer "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological organisms. So, similar to Lamarckiansm, and even inductivism, it assumes the knowledge was already present, rather than being genuinely created. <br /><br />If you assume that any naturalistic explanation must be reductionist, then yes. There is no explanation for any UCA tree. But that's my point. <br /><br />The idea that all scientific explanations should be reductionist in nature, including those for any UCA tree, is an implicit criteria that you have not disclosed or argued for. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2702650488301934852013-12-24T12:00:49.917-08:002013-12-24T12:00:49.917-08:00aiguy:
It is ridiculous to complain, as Hunter do...aiguy:<br /><br /><i>It is ridiculous to complain, as Hunter does, that Shapiros theories (if true) would only push the problem of novelty back one step. That is all scientific theories ever do.</i><br /><br />To follow up from what Jeff said. This argument that "That is all scientific theories ever do" is what evolutionists say after you have questioned their claim that they have scientifically explained the origin of all the species. We're not holding them to anything they have not already claimed to have shown.<br /><br />Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66878261248923959462013-12-23T20:38:27.498-08:002013-12-23T20:38:27.498-08:00Sounds like Shapiro was taken to the woodshed by t...Sounds like Shapiro was taken to the woodshed by the darwinian mafia for his previous comments and is now trying to do damage control.<br /><br />BTW, it's interesting to see how outraged evolutionists get when they MISTAKENLY think they or their position have been mischaracterized yet don't mind doing it to I.D proponents and creationists <b>all the time.</b>National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7948147713436909452013-12-23T16:30:47.243-08:002013-12-23T16:30:47.243-08:00Aiguy, CH isn't contending with people with th...Aiguy, CH isn't contending with people with the modest view of science you're describing. He's contending with deluded folks who actually think there's a SCIENTIFIC theory that accounts for a UCA genealogical tree in the posited time-frames for the various steps. Anyone who believes that assuming cladistic tree-generating programs model<br /><br />1) the relative temporal ordering of various character bundles (i.e., critters, plants, etc) caused by the historical mutations, etc that have actually occurred<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) the implied geological/taphonomical/fossil-collection biases responsible for tons of undiscovered intermediates and disparities between observed stratigraphic ranges and existential ranges<br /><br />is, without a doubt, DELUSIONAL. And yet there are MANY such delusional folk arrogantly insulting the intelligence of those who pay their salary.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12547022992935530722013-12-23T16:04:07.066-08:002013-12-23T16:04:07.066-08:00Scott, define "explanation." Because app...Scott, define "explanation." Because apparently you're confused if you think there is ANY naturalistic explanation for ANY UCA tree.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9765740896193699722013-12-23T11:00:40.012-08:002013-12-23T11:00:40.012-08:00Like most evolutionists, Shapiro is a dishonest an...Like most evolutionists, Shapiro is a dishonest and gutless swine. He's accusing the critics of evolution of the very sins that he and his kind are guilty of.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71496285893702395552013-12-23T10:43:28.366-08:002013-12-23T10:43:28.366-08:00The idea that all scientific explanations should b...The idea that all scientific explanations should be reductionist in nature is yet another implicit assumption that Cornelis smuggles into his objections. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18636767181123802582013-12-23T09:35:33.379-08:002013-12-23T09:35:33.379-08:00It is ridiculous to complain, as Hunter does, that...It is ridiculous to complain, as Hunter does, that Shapiros theories (if true) would only push the problem of novelty back one step. That is all scientific theories ever do. ID, obviously, doesn't even do that, because ID is not a theory at all. It not only fails to explain where the "intelligent designer" comes from, or how it operates, or what allows it to come up with designs and implement them, but it also doesn't even tell us what the "intelligent designer" is! Is it a process, a biological organism, a spirit, a ghost, a god, a system, something that we have no conception of whatsoever? ID explains nothing at all.aiguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09723645882645630141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56595077678290084472013-12-23T02:14:06.721-08:002013-12-23T02:14:06.721-08:00If only we had a court as wise as Solomon where Pr...If only we had a court as wise as Solomon where Professor Shapiro could seek justice. Then we could put an end to this debate once and for all.awstarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13442617812001833866noreply@blogger.com