Evolution - A serious question.

[Craig K. Manscill]

Millsapa, I'm on your side with the whole "evolution and science are wrong, the bible is correct" thing, but we have to let this go. They have logic and reason, they have always had that. But we don't want that, we have faith. Faith is like knowing the sun will rise, remember your primary songs? I know you think, "Maybe by ignoring their arguments, they'll forget they made them, like I did. And then they'll become Christians!" but this just isn't the way to do it. Love and peace.

- Craig

 

[One Brow]

You want some Millsapa action?

Millsapa action is like a one-night stand: fun and a quick release, but shallow, disconnected, and lacking in meaningful substance.

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts." ~ Albert Einstein

If Einstein were a philosopher of science, or a philosopher of mathematics, or even a mathematician, he would have some authority on the status of mathematics as a science. Since he was a physicist, he doesn't have mush authority on this particular topic. It's a valid point of view to say mathematicians are seekers of truths, similar to scientists, but they have different standards for truth and different ways of seeking truth.

Dembski has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. He has also held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

All of the paper where Dembski was the primary author were on mathematics (primarily his take on information theory). In all the joint projects to which he has contributed, his contribution was mathematical. Whatever his schooling, by profession he is a mathematician.

He definitely qualifies as a brilliant scientist in my book.

So far, your book has all depth and subtlety of "Green Eggs and Ham".

 

[One Brow]

Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire

What you won't hear at Uncommon Descent (unless the site has changed in the last couple of years) is that anthropology and forensic sciences use analogy as their primary method of design detection. That is, they look for design by comparing to what other designers have done. ID claims that we can't use this methodology (because to do so opens the door to all the examples of what would be truly bad design in biology).

 

[One Brow]

See how it says "Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution?" Do you still want to argue that the two "concepts" don't share the same designed attributes?

Before the Theory of Evolution, eugenicists (under s different name) used the ideas of animal husbandry and breeding. Th ideas of eugenics precedes evolutiobary theory, and is discreditied by evolutionary theory. That eugenicists tried to adopt evolutionary theory to give them a veneer of respectability is not a surprise.

 

[PearlWatson]

if einstein were a philosopher of science, or a philosopher of mathematics, or even a mathematician, he would have some authority on the status of mathematics as a science. Since he was a physicist, he doesn't have mush authority on this particular topic.

LoL!!!!

 

[Scat]

If Einstein were a philosopher of science, or a philosopher of mathematics, or even a mathematician, he would have some authority on the status of mathematics as a science. Since he was a physicist, he doesn't have mush authority on this particular topic.

LoL!!!!

I have to laugh with Millsapa on this one.

 

[PearlWatson]

Since the Theory of Evolution does not have a concept of "the first bird", what is there to explain?

They don't have a "concept" of the first bird?
Well they certainly have a "concept" of our supposed first ape like ancestor. Of course it is only a drawing, and science ain't about the ability to concoct a drawing of a "concept."
As for birds. There has to be a first bird in evolution and there also has to be a bird-like ancestor before that and so on and so forth back to the first single celled organism in the pool of goo...if the random mutation is incremental. Or does some non-flying animal suddenly pop out wings and feathers, webbed feet, and the ability to make nests?

 

[Scat]

Since the Theory of Evolution does not have a concept of "the first bird", what is there to explain?

Archaeopteryx.

 

[One Brow]

They don't have a "concept" of the first bird?

Correct.

Well they certainly have a "concept" of our supposed first ape like ancestor.

Incorrect. They have a concept of ancestral populations that became increasingly ape-like over time, but there was no first ape.

An analogy: who was the first person to speak French, and to whom did he speak it?

There has to be a first bird in evolution

why?

and there also has to be a bird-like ancestor before that and so on and so forth back to the first single celled organism in the pool of goo...if the random mutation is incremental.

The fact that mutation/selection/etc. is incremental is the reason why there is no first bird. The idea of a first bird is a creationist notion, not an evolutioary notion.

Or does some non-flying animal suddenly pop out wings and feathers, webbed feet, and the ability to make nests?

The animal you described would have been a first bird, which doesn't exist in evolutionary theory.

 

[One Brow]

Archaeopteryx.

What sort of explanation do you want for Archaeopteryx, and why did you connect it with the idea of a first bird?

I have to laugh with Millsapa on this one.

I recommend it. It's much easier on you that way.

 

[Scat]

What sort of explanation do you want for Archaeopteryx, and why did you connect it with the idea of a first bird?

It has often been referred to as the first bird.

 

[Scat]

I recommend it. It's much easier on you that way.

For the record we are laughing at you.