[skipping some]
BH:
>
>>Despite what you may have read, the idea that
>>macroevolution is just microevolution extrapolated is not
>>universally accepted, not by a long shot. So, we agree on
>>this, it is simplistic, IMHO.
>
>Bertvan;
>If this were to become public knowledge, the both creationists and I might
>have to find something else to argue about, wouldn't we?
>
I believe that it *is* public knowledge. Perhaps you have not read
widely enough yet. For a contrast with ultra-Darwinism let me
suggest the following popular level books as a starting point:
<How the Leopard Changed its Spots> by Brian Goodwin
<Reinventing Darwin> by Niles Eldredge
<Lifelines: Biology Beyond Reductionism> by Steven Rose
[...]
>Brian:
>> But according to my reading, deterministic
>>materialism is not a particularly popular view among scientists in
>>general. Once again, though, this will very much depend upon exactly
>>what one means by materialism and determinism. Also, you seem to
>>be crossing swords with yourself a little now as random and
>>deterministic are opposites.
>
>Bertvan:
>Right again. Hadn't thought of that. And it is heartening that you believe
>deterministic materialism is losing it's hold over science. I have a web
>page, by the way, but it doesn't have much to do with evolutioh.
>
Perhaps I better elaborate a little more on this. I would tend to
make a much stronger claim than the above, it is not losing its
hold, its dead, buried almost a century ago.
My earlier statement "...this will very much depend upon exactly
what one means by materialism and determinism." Is very important.
I recall earlier your stating that you had read a lot of Johnson.
Apparently you were much influenced by Johnson (nothing wrong with
this :) as in another post you gave a definition of materialism
that seems very consistent with the way Phil uses the term:
#"I thought materialism had a pretty specific definition.--That
#nothing exists except matter and energy, and everything is
#humanly understandable in those terms. That the universe is
#the result of a series of accidents-- without plan, meaning or
#purpose. What is your definition?"-- Bertvan
This view goes by various names, i.e., reductionistic materialism,
deterministic materialism, mechanistic materialism, mechanistic
world view, or sometimes just materialism. This is the view that
I claim is dead {but would be very interested in counter arguments
from those who feel otherwise}
Now, what I believe Phil wants to do is to lump all of materialism
into this, the narrowest view of materialism. Further, he wants
to say that naturalism is for all practical purposes the same as
this narrow materialism. Further, I believe that he would like to
say that materialism is for all practical purposes identical with
atheism. [Perhaps this will help you understand why TE's don't
particularly like being called theistic naturalists (=~ theistic
atheists :)]. This is particularly interesting considering Phil's
complaint that evolutionists tend to lump all of creationism into
the narrowest view, YEC.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert