"Stephen E. Jones" writes
in message <200004142135.RAA24361@ursa.calvin.edu>:
[Stephen clarifies his claim]
> My claim is that sex *may not have* originated fully naturalistically.
>
[In regards to the claim that Darwinism can't even predict a variety
of distinct forms]
> TH>It would be able to predict a wide variety of living things
> >(it is not clear to me how the fragment of the Popper quote
> >has bearing on this-- maybe you'd like to flesh out his argument?)
> >and even predict such things as sense organs, reproductive
> >organs, etc., but, of course, all the tiny details wouldn't be
> >known.
>
> There is nothing to "flesh out". The simple fact is that Darwinism
> would not be falsified if we found another Earth-like planet
> with no life, or only primitive life on it, or even advanced
> life on it with no human-like life.
That's obvious. However, the claim of variety would be falsified
if we found only the same life forms over a variety of conditions.
> Therefore Darwinism cannot predict the origin and development of life on
> Earth at *any* level, including the emergence of humans.
Rather ambiguously stated. Perhaps you should say that Darwinism
can't predict the origin and development of any given species.
<snip>
> I note also that Tedd ignores my crucial qualification "in
> particular"! I would be interested in what things *in particular*
> Tedd believes that Darwinian evolution can predict.
It's not clear to me what you mean by "in particular". Perhaps
if you agree with my rephrase of your statement above, we actually
agree.
> TH>I'm skipping most of your quotes. While interesting, I believe
> >they often do not fairly represent the views of the persons
> >quoted, they lack enough context to be sure of the view expressed,
> >and they do not take into account changing views over time or
> >new discoveries.
>
> Tedd does not provide any *evidence* that the quotes I supplied: 1: "do
> not fairly represent the views of the persons quoted"; 2. "lack enough
> context to be sure of the view expressed"; and 3. "do not take into account
> changing views over time or new discoveries".
There's no particular reason I see that such evidence is needed.
I've listed the obvious problems with attempting to use quotes
to bolster a particular viewpoint. This isn't just a problem
unique to you, it's a problem for anyone who attempts to represent
a person's views out of full context. That's just the nature of
the written word and the reason why people typically write books
to express their views, not single paragraphs. If you use quotes
to make your arguments rather than the more reasonable alternatives
I supply below, your argument is helped only marginally. You *do*
want to make persuasive arguments, don't you?
> TH>Now, if you want to refer to specific evidence
> >or specific interpretations of evidence or specific lack of
> >evidence in biology or evolution or make specific arguments
> >related to your quoted material on this subject, I'll be happy
> >to participate.
>
> That is indeed what I have done in this thread, and in my posts generally!
> If Tedd wants to "participate", or not, that is up to him.
In between quotes, eh? :) I didn't see too much in this post,
but I'll watch for them in general.
> TH>I certainly wouldn't say the problem of the origin of sex is
> >solved (at the very least, not until we have one theory rather
> >than two or more), but I consider it very important to reference
> >all the theories, evidence and research that it a part of this
> >issue, rather than attempting to summarize it with subjective
> >terms.
>
> Good. So given that according to Tedd's own quote: "One of the
> arguments currently dominating the competition" was admitted by
> its champion, "Michael Rose" to be regarded by other "people"
> (presumably meaning other experts in that field) as "possible,
> but...trivial."
That's a bit out of context. This category name is probably
facetious and not to be strictly applied the way you do here.
> does Tedd disagree with Susan that "Sex is not
> a problem at all for evolution"?
If Susan says that the question of the origin of sex has been
solved, I would disagree. However, she replied to an inference
that evolution was incapable of explaining sex and that
evolution might be in serious trouble for that and I agreed
with her answer.
> TH>Why not explain what specifically is baffling about the origin
> >of sex to you and the implications that a failure to explain it
> >have for your philosophy? Is it the difficulty in explaining
> >meiosis or is there just no way that sex could arise in step-wise
> >fashion, each step having a selective advantage?
>
> Tedd forgets that it was not me who said it the origin of sex
> was "baffling" - it was *Dawkins*!
>
> What Tedd is again trying to do here is shift the burden of
> proof. He wants me to say why *I* find it "baffling" so the
> problem can look like it is *my* problem, not Darwinism's.
Nope, problems are problems regardless of who defines them. I
think it is quite unfair to ask you to defend Dawkins' argument
since it isn't clear what Dawkins' finds baffling, whether or
not recent research has changed that status, and most importantly,
what he means by "baffling" in the context of a discussion of
ID as an alternative, why don't you explain what specifically
is baffling about the origin of sex to you and the implications
that a failure to explain it have for your philosophy? Is it
the difficulty in explaining meiosis or is there just no way
that sex could arise in step-wise fashion, each step having a
selective advantage?
<snip quote>
> That's why this debate has never gone away and will never go away. The
> critics don't feel they have been beaten fair and square. Until Darwinism
> actually solves these "baffling" problems and wins the debate fair and
> square, this debate will continue on as a `war of attrition'.
Um... where is this debate taking place? Certainly not in
the research labs it would appear.
<snip>
> The general public is now becoming increasingly aware that there
> are major problems with Darwinism,
I don't think so. What widely read magazines or popular TV
shows present these major problems? I've seen just the
opposite.
> the Darwinists are deeply divided among themselves,
No, the differences all seem to be relatively minor.
> and the critics are not all red-necked
> Bible thumpers. Moreover some of the social implications of
> Darwinism (e.g. rape is adaptive, etc) are being made public
> and are being rejected as absurd.
Non sequitur, rape not being adaptive is quite consistent
with Darwinism.
> My prediction is that by the early 21st century the Darwinists
> will be unable to continue preventing the critical discussion
> of Darwinism's many problems in science classes.
That's not much of a prediction unless you identify which of
Darwinism's "many problems" you think aren't being discussed
today. Can you supply specifics?
> When that happens, there will be a need for alternative explanations
> to gain a hearing. Those alternative explanation will need to
> include both Intelligent Design and the various Creation models
> (OEC & YEC). When students are exposed to the problems of
> Darwinism, plus the evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation,
> the majority IMHO will reject Darwinism and opt for either ID
> ans/or one of the Creation models both. Then the damage that
> Darwinism and Materialism has wrought on society for the last
> 140 years can start to be repaired.
And you call me a "true believer"! :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 17 2000 - 14:29:08 EDT