On 18 Jan 2001, at 8:09, Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:51 PM John Marlow email@example.com wrote:
> > If you're referring to this link, I don't follow. Obviously anyone
> > attacking evolution is going to attract creationists, fanatical and
> > otherwise, but the guy is referring to works such as Stuart
> > Kauffman's.
> It's not usually a problem in _certain_ circles. The problem here is,
> perhaps, as Damien stated. The thread started off soiled with creationism.
> Of course, I should've known any discussion over it here would go in that
> direction, since most people here only understand the issue in terms of
> "creationism vs. evolution." (Not that this is all that bad. We can't all
> be evolutionary biologists.:)
> Also, I don't consider offering explanations such as genetic drift or
> orthogenesis for the evolution of some particular biological thing (whether
> species, behavior, body part (e.g., eye), digestive process) as "attacking
> evolution." It might be attacking a particular explanation of evolution,
> but none of the aforementioned explanations go against evolution as such.
> Also, someone mentioned in an earlier thread that Darwin claimed that the
> eye could've evolved in so many generations. It's been a long time since
> I've read Darwin. Now, I don't mean to diss him either, as he is one of the
> best exemplars of the scientific and dialectical methods. He not only
> demonstrates his views, but considers alternatives in detail.
> However, this solution to the problem of the eye's evolution is just
> speculation. What we need is evidence. now, I don't doubt the eye came
> about by an evolutionary process, BUT which one and how? To find out, we
> need to test various hypotheses -- not just assume them. This is why I
> wrote "Testing Evolutionary Explanations" (at
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Testing.html). While such speculations
> might be a good way to get at the truth of the matter, they must be tested.
> They are also weak arguments and not the final word.
> One can't, after all, just offer a story that fits with one's pet theory
> and, say, "Voila! I've solved all problems and answered all criticisms!"
> (I'm NOT claiming Darwin did this, but I AM claiming others do this.) This
> is no different than any other mythology. In order not to be myth, science
> must rely on rigorous testing...
> Daniel Ust
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT