| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
22 May 2004 11:45:46 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What Scholars think about "Evolution" |
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40ADE71C.80801@pacbell.net>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
I haven't been reading his every post, when did he accept common descent
and what part of the ToE does he continue to disagree with?
Check out, for example, the opening post in his thread on ID + common
descent, and his responses to my posts in that thread. He at least
claims to accept common descent and the great age of the universe.
I have accepted [JH]"the great age of the universe" since day 1 of my
involvement in newsgroups, about 8 years now.
Trade Secrets, Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Articles),
Advice to Creationists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980705224221.22241A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
His
apparent position now seems to be roughly the same as that of Behe: the
history of life is as it appears to science, but the mechanism of
natural selection is inadequate to explain it and we must invoke an
intelligent agent.
.
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scholars think about "Evolution" |
22 May 2004 12:07:01 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40ADE71C.80801@pacbell.net>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
I haven't been reading his every post, when did he accept common descent
and what part of the ToE does he continue to disagree with?
Check out, for example, the opening post in his thread on ID + common
descent, and his responses to my posts in that thread. He at least
claims to accept common descent and the great age of the universe.
I have accepted [JH]"the great age of the universe" since day 1 of my
involvement in newsgroups, about 8 years now.
Ah, but the common descent part is new, isn't it?
Trade Secrets, Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Articles),
Advice to Creationists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980705224221.22241A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
His
apparent position now seems to be roughly the same as that of Behe: the
history of life is as it appears to science, but the mechanism of
natural selection is inadequate to explain it and we must invoke an
intelligent agent.
Just to clarify: is this indeed your position?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scholars think about "Evolution" |
24 May 2004 11:11:16 PM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40AF8A91.7050704@pacbell.net>...
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40ADE71C.80801@pacbell.net>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
I haven't been reading his every post, when did he accept common descent
and what part of the ToE does he continue to disagree with?
Check out, for example, the opening post in his thread on ID + common
descent, and his responses to my posts in that thread. He at least
claims to accept common descent and the great age of the universe.
I have accepted [JH]"the great age of the universe" since day 1 of my
involvement in newsgroups, about 8 years now.
Ah, but the common descent part is new, isn't it?
My use of the idea of common descent is new. In the past, I have
never really had a problem with common descent. Some questions, of
course, but it wasn't ever a big deal. The important issue is whether
or not biology is the result of intelligent design, and not whether
there was common descent from one or more common ancestors.
Trade Secrets, Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Articles),
Advice to Creationists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980705224221.22241A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
His
apparent position now seems to be roughly the same as that of Behe: the
history of life is as it appears to science,
Meaning what, exactly?
but the mechanism of
natural selection
as conceived of by Dawkins and Darwin
is inadequate to explain it and we must invoke an
intelligent agent.
or agents.
Just to clarify: is this indeed your position?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scholars think about "Evolution" |
25 May 2004 07:01:53 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40AF8A91.7050704@pacbell.net>...
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40ADE71C.80801@pacbell.net>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
I haven't been reading his every post, when did he accept common descent
and what part of the ToE does he continue to disagree with?
Check out, for example, the opening post in his thread on ID + common
descent, and his responses to my posts in that thread. He at least
claims to accept common descent and the great age of the universe.
I have accepted [JH]"the great age of the universe" since day 1 of my
involvement in newsgroups, about 8 years now.
Ah, but the common descent part is new, isn't it?
My use of the idea of common descent is new. In the past, I have
never really had a problem with common descent. Some questions, of
course, but it wasn't ever a big deal. The important issue is whether
or not biology is the result of intelligent design, and not whether
there was common descent from one or more common ancestors.
Not important to you, maybe.
Trade Secrets, Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Articles),
Advice to Creationists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980705224221.22241A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
His
apparent position now seems to be roughly the same as that of Behe: the
history of life is as it appears to science,
Meaning what, exactly?
Meaning a tree, with species all related by common descent, and
presumably with no complaints even about the details of relationships,
or about transitional fossils, and so on.
but the mechanism of
natural selection
as conceived of by Dawkins and Darwin
You have no complaints about it as conceived by someone else? If so, who?
is inadequate to explain it and we must invoke an
intelligent agent.
or agents.
Just to clarify: is this indeed your position?
I have no evidence at present that leads me to believe otherwise.
Further, I have no evidence that leads me to believe that any such agent
exists. Thus we contrast a mechanism known to exist that appears
adequate to the task with an agent for which there is no apparent need
or evidence of existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: What Scholars think about "Evolution" |
25 May 2004 12:32:23 PM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40B337A7.20007@pacbell.net>...
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40AF8A91.7050704@pacbell.net>...
david ford wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40ADE71C.80801@pacbell.net>...
Ken Shaw wrote:
I haven't been reading his every post, when did he accept common descent
and what part of the ToE does he continue to disagree with?
Check out, for example, the opening post in his thread on ID + common
descent, and his responses to my posts in that thread. He at least
claims to accept common descent and the great age of the universe.
I have accepted [JH]"the great age of the universe" since day 1 of my
involvement in newsgroups, about 8 years now.
Ah, but the common descent part is new, isn't it?
My use of the idea of common descent is new.
As a correction to this comment of mine, I favorably referenced in
1998 the idea of intelligent design + common descent when saying,
[df]"One possibility of how an intelligent agent might go about
creating the various lifeforms is to place in the first living entity
(or entities) it creates a 'program' that, when run, results in the
emergence of biological novelties. Cannon and Behe have floated ideas
along these lines."
Citation appears in the second of these two URLs:
H. Graham Cannon
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911222044330.19223-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Cannon was a creationist; Of Pandas and People
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911082221330.16551-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
In 1996, I favorably referenced Behe's idea. See
1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
In the past, I have
never really had a problem with common descent. Some questions, of
course, but it wasn't ever a big deal. The important issue is whether
or not biology is the result of intelligent design, and not whether
there was common descent from one or more common ancestors.
Not important to you, maybe.
Trade Secrets, Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Articles),
Advice to Creationists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980705224221.22241A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
His
apparent position now seems to be roughly the same as that of Behe: the
history of life is as it appears to science,
Meaning what, exactly?
Meaning a tree, with species all related by common descent, and
presumably with no complaints even about the details of relationships,
or about transitional fossils, and so on.
I have questions [JH]"about the details of relationships," some of
which I have asked you in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405240600.51c9f168%40posting.google.com
and I talk about transitional fossils all the time.
but the mechanism of
natural selection
as conceived of by Dawkins and Darwin
You have no complaints about it as conceived by someone else? If so, who?
Some pre-_Origin_ creationists. If you would like someone's name, let
me know and I will go hunting for one.
is inadequate to explain it and we must invoke an
intelligent agent.
or agents.
Just to clarify: is this indeed your position?
I have no evidence at present that leads me to believe otherwise.
Further, I have no evidence that leads me to believe that any such agent
exists. Thus we contrast a mechanism known to exist that appears
adequate to the task with an agent for which there is no apparent need
or evidence of existence.
[JH]"a mechanism known to exist that appears adequate to the task"
What mechanism is that?
Do you agree with anything in this statement, and if so, what?:
Dawkins, Richard. 15 April 1982. "The necessity
of Darwinism" _New Scientist_, 130-2. On 130:
Darwin's theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all the
available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any
serious modern biologist.
Do you agree with Dawkins that biology exhibits the strong appearance
of having been the product of intelligent design?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
