" .. these [AFA and the like] sleazy organizations love to present the illusion of being scientific, so they like to rent out halls in museums and universities in order to put on their shows."
What a plain talking piece at PZ's site about the circumstances leading to this little contretemps.
Don't get your hopes up, ID sycophants. This has nothing to do with science but the actions of an irrelevant rump of some christian spin-off group flaccidly flexing its purported muscle, the outcome of which could only be reflected through whining about 'freedom of speech'.
There is nothing here that constitutes anything like a half decent legal precedence for further action by IDers.
I think PZ is right about this one, and I'm horrified to be agreeing with Paps, but the news article Vic linked to exhibits exactly the sort of sleaze that PZ was talking about.
"I think PZ is right about this one, and I'm horrified to be agreeing with Paps, but the news article Vic linked to exhibits exactly the sort of sleaze that PZ was talking about."
... how? The article talks about it being a victory for free spech. Even if it wasn't settled in court, the ID proponents were allowed to show their ID stuff.
They would've been allowed to show their stuff anyway, if they hadn't tried to claim endorsement. This wasn't a free speech issue, and they way they structured the settlement makes it all the more clear that they are sleazeballs.
Think about how that settlement could possibly be a win-win:
A) Science Foundation stops ID organization from falsely implying that science foundation supports ID. Win.
B) ID proponents get a court settlement claiming that "they could've talked, but didn't", so they can pretend it was a free speech issue. Win.
The important thing to note is that the ID people are *still* concerned only with appearances. No free speech laws were violated, and neither side admits fault, but these sleazebags wants to trumpet some "free speech" victory for ID. Seriously? Is that what the ID movement is about?
They misrepresented their endorsement by the science foundation, and now they are misrepresenting their relationship to the U.S. Constitution.
Personally without naming names I believe some public ID proponents have acted as sleazebags.
But to be fair often it is a bunch of ID sleazebags vs a bunch of Gnu Atheist sleazebags vs a bunch of clueless Theistic Evolutionist who haven't got a clue in regards to philosophy(i.e. Like the People over at Biologos thought I think they are showing some signs of progress).
It's a mess & don't see it being cleaned up anytime soon.
Speaking as an atheist, I think that's a very sweet thing to say. If PZ Myers represents our lowest bar and Fred Phelps represents the theist's lowest bar, we're in pretty good shape! (Or, has PZ started protesting soldiers' funerals?)
@Ben - Yes, it's the behavior that I'm criticizing. For all we know, the ID folks might one day discover that RNA encodes a signature saying "Yaweh was here". But it's hard to take them seriously with some of these shenanigans.
In my opinion, the people behind this latest thing are a lot like Jim Baker. Saying something that a lot of Christians wanted desperately to hear, savvy at manipulating media and marketing, but not honest.
As a Catholic and a liberal who also strongly believes in Intelligent design (AND in evolution - yes, the two are compatible), I still say that ID is NOT SCIENCE !!!
(Not that there's anything wrong with that! There are a lot of things I strongly believe in that are not science - poetry, music, friendship, prayer.)
"They would've been allowed to show their stuff anyway, if they hadn't tried to claim endorsement."
This is not what the article says:
"CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event."
>However, ID currentlyt consists of anti-evolution arguments. That's not a theory.
Not really trying to claim an irreducible complexity in lifeforms that suggests lifeforms are artifacts is a theory. Maybe not a completely convincing one. But we can say the same about String Theory. Atheist philosopher Jerry Foder makes "anti-evolution" arguments but largely because he is in fact trying to protect his Atheism. He seems to see Natural Selection as having goals thus teleology. Ironic and comical, Militant Atheist Neo-darwinists fume against Fodor ID Theists root for him when it should be the other way around.
To quote Michael Moorecock "Life is a comedy & like all good comedy it has a tragedy beneath it."
>As a Catholic and a liberal who also strongly believes in Intelligent design (AND in evolution - yes, the two are compatible), I still say that ID is NOT SCIENCE !!!
Of course what do you mean Bob by intelligent design? It's like the term "Creationism". Dawkins bags on Francis Collins for being a "Creationist" even thought the man is a Theistic Evolutionist. Thus some Gnus have taken to using the term "Creationist" as synonymous with Theist.
The same with intelligent design. A Thomistic critic of ID can be said to believe God(who is by definition Intelligent) created & sustains the Universe and all Natural Possesses within it. But that is not the same as endorsing erroneous post enlightenment Mechanistic Philosophy over & against the Classical Philosophy.
@Anonymous - "the news release wrongly implied that the California Science Center is "a West Coast branch of the Smithsonian, and that the film showing is a Smithsonian event." ".
They lied on the news release, they lied about "winning" the court case, and in their own press release on the deceptive propaganda site, they lie about the reasons for the original cancellation. Sleazeballs.
BenYachov said... Not really trying to claim an irreducible complexity in lifeforms that suggests lifeforms are artifacts is a theory.
Good. Because its not a theory.
Maybe not a completely convincing one.
Not one in any sense of the word.
But we can say the same about String Theory.
Very true, and many physicists do. The misnamed "String Theory" is also not considered a mathematical theory, but more of a curiousity.
Atheist philosopher Jerry Foder makes "anti-evolution" arguments but largely because he is in fact trying to protect his Atheism. He seems to see Natural Selection as having goals thus teleology.
Assuming that were true, that would be his problem.
Ironic and comical, Militant Atheist Neo-darwinists fume against Fodor ID Theists root for him when it should be the other way around.
Why should it be the other way around? Maybe you fight for a side, regardless of how good or bad the argument is. Those so-called "Militant Atheist Neo-darwinists" are opposing a bad argument (as you describe it), regardless of who says it. I prefer the latter.
I looked up a little more about Fodor's arguments. There seems to be nothing there to support notions of Intelligent Design. In fact, they seem a sort of far-ou7t take on ideas similar to Gould's combined with notion the concept is new (when the degree to which natural selection contributes has been debated for decades). If anything, it was the presumptuousness that seemed to earn ire in the reviews I read, not the comments on biology.
Take it up with Bradley Monton. I'm a Thomist it's not my problem.
>I looked up a little more about Fodor's arguments. There seems to be nothing there to support notions of Intelligent Design.
I never said Fodor's argument supports ID. Rather ID people root for him because he criticizes Darwinism. They like him for polemics not apologetics.
>Why should it be the other way around?
Good question, maybe when I get the time I'll find the article I once read on it. But for now I am too lazy. But yeh it should be the other way around.
Both sides are backing the wrong horse and it's hysterical!
Too funny.
>>If anything, it was the presumptuousness that seemed to earn ire in the reviews I read, not the comments on biology.
Rather he is looking at Natural Selection from the view point of naturalist philosophy and maintaining anti-telology & is being criticized by a bunch of philosophically illiterate biologists and scientists.
Why is it most modern scientists are flaming idiots when it comes to philosophy?
@JSA Ok seriously, how old are you. Five? Because I have yet to come up with a more plausible explanation that you feel the need to use "sleazebags" or "sleazeballs" in every post. You sound like the parody of someone with tourette ("How's the weather today? Shitfuckers!").
On Topic - Here's what really happened: The Discovery Institute issued a press release that said the screening was endorsed by the Smithsonian. Then the director of the Smithsonian's affiliates program said this wasn't the case and wanted themto correct that on the release. But the CSC decided to cancel the screening because the contract they had with the AFA said that the CSC had to approve all promotional materials prior to their release which didn't happen in this case and thus the release constitutd a contract violation. The AFA responded with pointing out that they did not issue the release, the Discovery Institute did. Therefore, they didn't violate their contract. They stated that the CSC was just trying to come up with justifications for cancelling the event because the Smithsonian put pressure on them, saw this as a violation of free speech rights and sued. In the end, the CSC wanted to settle the case and as part of the settlement, allowed the AFA to show their stuff. Since the AFA has reason to assume that the original cancellation was due to anti-ID discrimination, they can indeed call this a victory for their free speech. That's a victory for them, period.
@Matthew - You had me right up until your last paragraph. How you can relate an accurate account of the facts, yet still conclude that it's "a victory for them, period", is beyond me.
I look at the same account of the facts, and conclude that we are looking at sleazy sleaze-goblins being sleazishly sleazeful. They take the victory in *that*!
BenYachov said... Rather he is looking at Natural Selection from the view point of naturalist philosophy and maintaining anti-telology & is being criticized by a bunch of philosophically illiterate biologists and scientists.
As I pointed out, there is little new in what Fodor has been saying about the biology. The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology.
>As I pointed out, there is little new in what Fodor has been saying about the biology. The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology.
Did you watch part of video I linked to above? I didn't see any arrogance on the part of Foder(or Elliot for that matter).
Believe what you like but I believe the negative tone comes from fundamentalist Neo-Darwinists not Fodor.
It's kind of pathetic. Some fundie Neo-Darwinians need natural selection to be true in order to be Atheists and Evolutionists.
Just as some Christian fundies need YEC to be true in order to believe the Bible.
BenYachov said... Did you watch part of video I linked to above? I didn't see any arrogance on the part of Foder(or Elliot for that matter).
I was referring to the reactions to his book. A man may have arrogant ideas yet humble mannerisms.
It's kind of pathetic. Some fundie Neo-Darwinians need natural selection to be true in order to be Atheists and Evolutionists.
What does "true" mean here? Natural selection is a mechanism, which either operates or does not operate. If natural selection had never been ope3rational, why would that affect any atheists belief?
>I was referring to the reactions to his book. A man may have arrogant ideas yet humble mannerisms.
You originally said "The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology."
Can ideas have "tone" as well as being "arrogant"?
What does that even mean?
One Brow you remind me of the GOOD NEWS translation of the NT. "English as it has never been spoken before".
>What does "true" mean here?
How do ideas have "Tone" and "arrogance"? You first!
One Brow you are for real here or are you just dicking me around again?
>Natural selection is a mechanism, which either operates or does not operate.
Why so simplistic?
Does it over time change one species into another or does it merely alter the form of a species to adapt? Does it cause a species to translate into higher species?
Or are there other mechanisms at work?
Of course I still don't get the ideas have "Tones" and "arrogance" even if Fodor is still a humble person.
We should just throw in the towel One Brow. I can't understand you.
BenYachov said... >I was referring to the reactions to his book. A man may have arrogant ideas yet humble mannerisms.
You originally said "The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology."
Can ideas have "tone" as well as being "arrogant"?
Are you just looking to bicker again? Do you really think mannerisms get translated onto the written word? Do you really think the written word lacks all tone, and can not show arrogance? I doubt it. It's much more like you're looking to disagree more than anything else.
>Natural selection is a mechanism, which either operates or does not operate.
Why so simplistic?
There are certainly more options and shades of grey, but I was conveying the ideas that "true" was the wrong word to use about natural selection.
Does it over time change one species into another or does it merely alter the form of a species to adapt?
A change in form from adaptation is often sufficient to give rise to a new species.
Does it cause a species to translate into higher species?
Evolutionary speaking, there is no such thing as a higher species.
Or are there other mechanisms at work?
There are a variety of mechanisms at work.
We should just throw in the towel One Brow. I can't understand you.
IF you tried a little harder to put things in context, the understanding might improve. For example, separating comments about the tone of a book from a discussion about the mannerisms of a person.
BTW aren't the ideas that have "tone" and "arrogance" about Teleology?
I already responded to this once. I could just repeat the comment of September 02, 2011 11:51 AM.
I thought about his ideas. The concepts and views He holds and their formal content.
Ideas & their content can exist apart from any written or recording media. I have many ideas that I have explained but have not written down. I have written down idea and others have relyed their content without having to quote me verbadum.
41 comments:
Well, they did not actually go to court, and the California Science Center did not admit fault. So, what was "won"? Nuisance money?
PZ Myers blogged on this yesterday.
I understood it to be a draw/tie, with neither side winning or losing?
By "win" you mean "didn't win" and by "in court" you mean "not in court" and by "ID" you mean "a PR firm", of course.
At this point, PZ Myers should just be ignored out of good taste.
" .. these [AFA and the like] sleazy organizations love to present the illusion of being scientific, so they like to rent out halls in museums and universities in order to put on their shows."
What a plain talking piece at PZ's site about the circumstances leading to this little contretemps.
Don't get your hopes up, ID sycophants. This has nothing to do with science but the actions of an irrelevant rump of some christian spin-off group flaccidly flexing its purported muscle, the outcome of which could only be reflected through whining about 'freedom of speech'.
There is nothing here that constitutes anything like a half decent legal precedence for further action by IDers.
I agree about PZ Myers. The man is a testament to the sordid and the base. What has contemporary academia come to? A depressing spectacle.
I agree with anonymous. PZ Myers has to be stopped!
SEEKING GOD IN SCIENCE:An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design.
by Bradley Monton
Any Atheists/skeptics/Agnostics here read it? What do you think?
I ask as a Catholic who objects to ID on Philosophical Aristotlian and Thomistic grounds.
Personally I think the whole ID thing is mindlessly political proxy for Conservative vs Liberal.
SE Cupp a politically conservative Atheist defends the teaching of Intelligent Design I suspect because liberals are against it.
OTOH I have no problem teaching ID as a secular theory alone the lines of Monton.
IMHO ID is not good for Classic Theism and Evolution is no thread. It's a yawn fest when YEC's and Gnus' claim otherwise.
PZ Myers the Fred Phelps of Atheism!
I think PZ is right about this one, and I'm horrified to be agreeing with Paps, but the news article Vic linked to exhibits exactly the sort of sleaze that PZ was talking about.
"I think PZ is right about this one, and I'm horrified to be agreeing with Paps, but the news article Vic linked to exhibits exactly the sort of sleaze that PZ was talking about."
... how? The article talks about it being a victory for free spech. Even if it wasn't settled in court, the ID proponents were allowed to show their ID stuff.
They would've been allowed to show their stuff anyway, if they hadn't tried to claim endorsement. This wasn't a free speech issue, and they way they structured the settlement makes it all the more clear that they are sleazeballs.
Think about how that settlement could possibly be a win-win:
A) Science Foundation stops ID organization from falsely implying that science foundation supports ID. Win.
B) ID proponents get a court settlement claiming that "they could've talked, but didn't", so they can pretend it was a free speech issue. Win.
The important thing to note is that the ID people are *still* concerned only with appearances. No free speech laws were violated, and neither side admits fault, but these sleazebags wants to trumpet some "free speech" victory for ID. Seriously? Is that what the ID movement is about?
They misrepresented their endorsement by the science foundation, and now they are misrepresenting their relationship to the U.S. Constitution.
Personally without naming names I believe some public ID proponents have acted as sleazebags.
But to be fair often it is a bunch of ID sleazebags vs a bunch of Gnu Atheist sleazebags vs a bunch of clueless Theistic Evolutionist who haven't got a clue in regards to philosophy(i.e. Like the People over at Biologos thought I think they are showing some signs of progress).
It's a mess & don't see it being cleaned up anytime soon.
"PZ Myers the Fred Phelps of Atheism!"
Speaking as an atheist, I think that's a very sweet thing to say. If PZ Myers represents our lowest bar and Fred Phelps represents the theist's lowest bar, we're in pretty good shape! (Or, has PZ started protesting soldiers' funerals?)
@Ben - Yes, it's the behavior that I'm criticizing. For all we know, the ID folks might one day discover that RNA encodes a signature saying "Yaweh was here". But it's hard to take them seriously with some of these shenanigans.
In my opinion, the people behind this latest thing are a lot like Jim Baker. Saying something that a lot of Christians wanted desperately to hear, savvy at manipulating media and marketing, but not honest.
BenYachov said...
OTOH I have no problem teaching ID as a secular theory alone the lines of Monton.
I also have no problem with that, when ID comes up with a theory. However, ID currentlyt consists of anti-evolution arguments. That's not a theory.
As a Catholic and a liberal who also strongly believes in Intelligent design (AND in evolution - yes, the two are compatible), I still say that ID is NOT SCIENCE !!!
(Not that there's anything wrong with that! There are a lot of things I strongly believe in that are not science - poetry, music, friendship, prayer.)
"They would've been allowed to show their stuff anyway, if they hadn't tried to claim endorsement."
This is not what the article says:
"CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event."
Please give a source for your claim.
Yes, where is the piece where they claim (or imply) endorsement? I'm not taking PZ Myers' word for it.
Anonymous said...
Yes, where is the piece where they claim (or imply) endorsement? I'm not taking PZ Myers' word for it.
Well, Myers does link to two news pieces, one the the LA Times and one by ABC News. YOu oppose those sources?
>However, ID currentlyt consists of anti-evolution arguments. That's not a theory.
Not really trying to claim an irreducible complexity in lifeforms that suggests lifeforms are artifacts is a theory. Maybe not a completely convincing one. But we can say the same about String Theory. Atheist philosopher Jerry Foder makes "anti-evolution" arguments but largely because he is in fact trying to protect his Atheism. He seems to see Natural Selection as having goals thus teleology.
Ironic and comical, Militant Atheist Neo-darwinists fume against Fodor ID Theists root for him when it should be the other way around.
To quote Michael Moorecock "Life is a comedy & like all good comedy it has a tragedy beneath it."
>As a Catholic and a liberal who also strongly believes in Intelligent design (AND in evolution - yes, the two are compatible), I still say that ID is NOT SCIENCE !!!
Of course what do you mean Bob by intelligent design? It's like the term "Creationism". Dawkins bags on Francis Collins for being a "Creationist" even thought the man is a Theistic Evolutionist. Thus some Gnus have taken to using the term "Creationist" as synonymous with Theist.
The same with intelligent design. A Thomistic critic of ID can be said to believe God(who is by definition Intelligent) created & sustains the Universe and all Natural Possesses within it.
But that is not the same as endorsing erroneous post enlightenment Mechanistic Philosophy over & against the Classical Philosophy.
@Anonymous - "the news release wrongly implied that the California Science Center is "a West Coast branch of the Smithsonian, and that the film showing is a Smithsonian event." ".
They lied on the news release, they lied about "winning" the court case, and in their own press release on the deceptive propaganda site, they lie about the reasons for the original cancellation. Sleazeballs.
BenYachov said...
Not really trying to claim an irreducible complexity in lifeforms that suggests lifeforms are artifacts is a theory.
Good. Because its not a theory.
Maybe not a completely convincing one.
Not one in any sense of the word.
But we can say the same about String Theory.
Very true, and many physicists do. The misnamed "String Theory" is also not considered a mathematical theory, but more of a curiousity.
Atheist philosopher Jerry Foder makes "anti-evolution" arguments but largely because he is in fact trying to protect his Atheism. He seems to see Natural Selection as having goals thus teleology.
Assuming that were true, that would be his problem.
Ironic and comical, Militant Atheist Neo-darwinists fume against Fodor ID Theists root for him when it should be the other way around.
Why should it be the other way around? Maybe you fight for a side, regardless of how good or bad the argument is. Those so-called "Militant Atheist Neo-darwinists" are opposing a bad argument (as you describe it), regardless of who says it. I prefer the latter.
I looked up a little more about Fodor's arguments. There seems to be nothing there to support notions of Intelligent Design. In fact, they seem a sort of far-ou7t take on ideas similar to Gould's combined with notion the concept is new (when the degree to which natural selection contributes has been debated for decades). If anything, it was the presumptuousness that seemed to earn ire in the reviews I read, not the comments on biology.
@One Brow
>Good. Because its not a theory.
Take it up with Bradley Monton. I'm a Thomist it's not my problem.
>I looked up a little more about Fodor's arguments. There seems to be nothing there to support notions of Intelligent Design.
I never said Fodor's argument supports ID. Rather ID people root for him because he criticizes Darwinism. They like him for polemics not apologetics.
>Why should it be the other way around?
Good question, maybe when I get the time I'll find the article I once read on it. But for now I am too lazy. But yeh it should be the other way around.
Both sides are backing the wrong horse and it's hysterical!
Too funny.
>>If anything, it was the presumptuousness that seemed to earn ire in the reviews I read, not the comments on biology.
Rather he is looking at Natural Selection from the view point of naturalist philosophy and maintaining anti-telology & is being criticized by a bunch of philosophically illiterate biologists and scientists.
Why is it most modern scientists are flaming idiots when it comes to philosophy?
Idiots the lot of them.
I'm going to watch some of this & then maybe record the rest to my hard drive and watch it later.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/26848
Fodor vs Elliot on Natural Selection.
I am pleased Elliot is a philosopher of Science. Thus I would take his criticisms of Fodor seriously.
@JSA Ok seriously, how old are you. Five? Because I have yet to come up with a more plausible explanation that you feel the need to use "sleazebags" or "sleazeballs" in every post. You sound like the parody of someone with tourette ("How's the weather today? Shitfuckers!").
On Topic - Here's what really happened:
The Discovery Institute issued a press release that said the screening was endorsed by the Smithsonian. Then the director of the Smithsonian's affiliates program said this wasn't the case and wanted themto correct that on the release. But the CSC decided to cancel the screening because the contract they had with the AFA said that the CSC had to approve all promotional materials prior to their release which didn't happen in this case and thus the release constitutd a contract violation. The AFA responded with pointing out that they did not issue the release, the Discovery Institute did. Therefore, they didn't violate their contract. They stated that the CSC was just trying to come up with justifications for cancelling the event because the Smithsonian put pressure on them, saw this as a violation of free speech rights and sued.
In the end, the CSC wanted to settle the case and as part of the settlement, allowed the AFA to show their stuff.
Since the AFA has reason to assume that the original cancellation was due to anti-ID discrimination, they can indeed call this a victory for their free speech. That's a victory for them, period.
@Matthew - You had me right up until your last paragraph. How you can relate an accurate account of the facts, yet still conclude that it's "a victory for them, period", is beyond me.
I look at the same account of the facts, and conclude that we are looking at sleazy sleaze-goblins being sleazishly sleazeful. They take the victory in *that*!
Since the AFA has reason to assume that the original cancellation was due to anti-ID discrimination, ...
You left such a reason out of your summation. Why do you think it exists?
BenYachov said...
Rather he is looking at Natural Selection from the view point of naturalist philosophy and maintaining anti-telology & is being criticized by a bunch of philosophically illiterate biologists and scientists.
As I pointed out, there is little new in what Fodor has been saying about the biology. The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology.
>As I pointed out, there is little new in what Fodor has been saying about the biology. The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology.
Did you watch part of video I linked to above? I didn't see any arrogance on the part of Foder(or Elliot for that matter).
Believe what you like but I believe the negative tone comes from fundamentalist Neo-Darwinists not Fodor.
It's kind of pathetic. Some fundie Neo-Darwinians need natural selection to be true in order to be Atheists and Evolutionists.
Just as some Christian fundies need YEC to be true in order to believe the Bible.
Silly the lot of them.
"Fodor vs Elliot on Natural Selection"
Much more interesting and informative were the following comments. i think it is plain enough where this perspective will lead.
BenYachov said...
Did you watch part of video I linked to above? I didn't see any arrogance on the part of Foder(or Elliot for that matter).
I was referring to the reactions to his book. A man may have arrogant ideas yet humble mannerisms.
It's kind of pathetic. Some fundie Neo-Darwinians need natural selection to be true in order to be Atheists and Evolutionists.
What does "true" mean here? Natural selection is a mechanism, which either operates or does not operate. If natural selection had never been ope3rational, why would that affect any atheists belief?
>I was referring to the reactions to his book. A man may have arrogant ideas yet humble mannerisms.
You originally said "The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology."
Can ideas have "tone" as well as being "arrogant"?
What does that even mean?
One Brow you remind me of the GOOD NEWS translation of the NT. "English as it has never been spoken before".
>What does "true" mean here?
How do ideas have "Tone" and "arrogance"? You first!
One Brow you are for real here or are you just dicking me around again?
>Natural selection is a mechanism, which either operates or does not operate.
Why so simplistic?
Does it over time change one species into another or does it merely alter the form of a species to adapt? Does it cause a species to translate into higher species?
Or are there other mechanisms at work?
Of course I still don't get the ideas have "Tones" and "arrogance" even if Fodor is still a humble person.
We should just throw in the towel One Brow. I can't understand you.
BTW aren't the ideas that have "tone" and "arrogance" about Teleology?
BenYachov said...
>I was referring to the reactions to his book. A man may have arrogant ideas yet humble mannerisms.
You originally said "The criticisms have been about tone and arrogance, not teleology."
Can ideas have "tone" as well as being "arrogant"?
Are you just looking to bicker again? Do you really think mannerisms get translated onto the written word? Do you really think the written word lacks all tone, and can not show arrogance? I doubt it. It's much more like you're looking to disagree more than anything else.
>Natural selection is a mechanism, which either operates or does not operate.
Why so simplistic?
There are certainly more options and shades of grey, but I was conveying the ideas that "true" was the wrong word to use about natural selection.
Does it over time change one species into another or does it merely alter the form of a species to adapt?
A change in form from adaptation is often sufficient to give rise to a new species.
Does it cause a species to translate into higher species?
Evolutionary speaking, there is no such thing as a higher species.
Or are there other mechanisms at work?
There are a variety of mechanisms at work.
We should just throw in the towel One Brow. I can't understand you.
IF you tried a little harder to put things in context, the understanding might improve. For example, separating comments about the tone of a book from a discussion about the mannerisms of a person.
BTW aren't the ideas that have "tone" and "arrogance" about Teleology?
I already responded to this once. I could just repeat the comment of
September 02, 2011 11:51 AM.
>Are you just looking to bicker again?
Me? Physician heal thyself.
>Do you really think mannerisms get translated onto the written word?
Now you are talking about the "written word"? I thought you where talking about ideas?
Hopeless.
>IF you tried a little harder to put things in context, the understanding might improve.
Or you could just learn to speak plain English instead of putting all these layers of esoteric meaning on your words.
But those questions you posted on Feser's blog about Adam and Evolution where nice. Assuming they mean what they mean at face value.;-)
BenYachov said...
Now you are talking about the "written word"? I thought you where talking about ideas?
When I referred to the reviews of his work that examined his ideas, what precisely did you think was being reviewed? His Broadway shows?
I thought about his ideas. The concepts and views He holds and their formal content.
Ideas & their content can exist apart from any written or recording media. I have many ideas that I have explained but have not written down. I have written down idea and others have relyed their content without having to quote me verbadum.
I would have thought that was obvious?
Post a Comment