Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- JazX0
Gould was interesting, though I'd contest the claim that he was a "statistical expert". If he were, he would not have been an evoloutionist. But, a colorful character, none the less, from what I understand. And one of the few Darwinists who was not afraid to challenge his peers' ideas about things.
discipler
(Dec 20 05, 11:21)well, he did a lot of comparisons between the statistics in baseball and the differentiation in the origin of species. I was on a paleo field trip with him, hunting for trilobites, and my professor in upstate NY. Quite a wild trip man. He was a nice guy. He loved the Yankees.
- jpolk0
the race to triple 7's is on
- khilled0
that's ac's number
- Crouwel0
well done.
- danthon0
number of the beast bitch
- danthon0
.
- danthon0
.
- danthon0
.
- danthon0
.
- danthon0
.
- discipler0
Gould was interesting, though I'd contest the claim that he was a "statistical expert". If he were, he would not have been an evoloutionist. But, a colorful character, none the less, from what I understand. And one of the few Darwinists who was not afraid to challenge his peers' ideas about things.
- JazX0
"A common strategy of opponents to design in biology (like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Francisco Ayala) is to assimilate intelligent design to one of these categories--apparent or optimal design."
discipler, I believe I told you that my paleontology professor was a roomate and friend of Stephen Jay Gould, when they were at Columbia. Crazy man actually, he was a wild drunk. Passed away already. A statistical and linguistic genius. I've heard him speak a number of times, but believe me, the use of his adjectives alone would lose all here.
- discipler0
Why Intelligent Design is Not "Optimal" Design:
- no-spin-zone0
http://www.actionbioscience.org/…
Great debate on the topic.
- liquid0
Indeed - this is getting old, again. Just wanted to point out the interesting Newstoday™.
ukit
(Dec 20 05, 11:10)
-----------------------
correction.
- ukit0
Indeed - this is getting old, again. Just wanted to point out the interesting news today.
- discipler0
I'm uncomfortable with the theistic implications of what you're showing and I'm not objective.
The End.
pavlovs_dog
(Dec 20 05, 11:05)
- pavlovs_dog0
Yera Kook....
The End.
- discipler0
heh, it's called falsification in science, pavlov. Learn.
- discipler0
danthon, the word for this line of reasoning is "dysteleology". The flawed notion of pointing to apparent "bad" design in biological systems as proof of no designer. It makes a number of errors...
- Never provides an absolute standard of perfection in order to determine if something is "bad" design. A perfect standard is required. Otherwise assumptions are unwarranted.
- Relating to the first point, how do we know that the designer did not implement limitations for better of the overall system? Any engineer will tell you that certain parts of machines/motors are configured sub-optimally so that other parts of the system can function better. Purposed limitations.
- Relating to the previous point. How do we know that the overall ecosystem will not be severely damaged if limitations were not in place? If a predatory animal were perfectly efficient, it would cause it's pray to be extinct and thus the predator becomes extinct. Where's the standard for this measurment?
- It is a theological argument to say that the designer is unintelligent, not a scientific one.
- Dysteleology ignores the scientific laws of thermodynamics which demonstrate that the universe is running out of useful energy and things become less efficient and break down.