|
Author
|
Topic: Philip R. Page: The Impasse between the Design and Evolution of Life
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 04. September 2002 08:29
The Impasse between the Design and Evolution of Life
by Philip R. Page
prp@deuteron.lanl.gov
ABSTRACT—The design explanation of the origin and structure of life, which is a rational probabilistic mode of explanation, is currently sustained in tandem with the chance explanation, usually based on Darwinian polyphyletic evolution. It is hence possible for two logically incompatible explanations to be adopted concurrently by the scientific community. Evolution partially developed in response to the need for a causal story.
To read the entire paper, please click here
[ 04 September 2002, 08:33: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred Tang
Member
Member # 419
|
posted 19. September 2002 12:48
Philip Page's paper is thoughtfully written. It is rare to see a scientist writing in a philosophically sophisticated way these days. I am somewhat familiar with the type of arguments he reviews in his paper, except his discussion on the concept of "the mode of explanation" which is still a bit unclear to me. Maybe the obscurity is due to my fault of reading the paper too quickly.
It appears that Page functions primarily as a philosopher in this paper and speak only as a physicist whenever he needs to import physical data for support. In my opinion, philosophy is useful in sorting out categories and ideas but not directly helpful in obtaining contingent truths. Aristotle has arrived at many wrong conclusions of the physical laws in his Physics by appealing to pure reason only, such as the conclusion that heavier objects fall more quickly under the influence of gravity. Since analytic philosophy is primarily an exercise of pure logic, it functions somewhat like mathematics. In mathematics, one invents a set of axioms and use pure logic to build secondary mathematical objects on top of them. Mathematics cannot internally inform itself of the choice of axioms out of pure reason. Axiomatic conjectures are creative progresses that depends on "external" inspirations. Creation/evolution can be similar kinds of axiomatic truths that depend on external sources. If so, they cannot be proven internally from pure reason alone. I think that Page may also agree with me on this point because he did appeal to empirical data to support his arguments in his paper. I raise this issue because many philosophically oriented thinkers are tempted to put too much faith in philosophy as a way to resolve the creation vs. evolution conflict. I think that philosophy is useful in clarifying thinking, although it may not lead a thinker to empirical truths directly. A believing scientist can use his personal resources to gather physical evidence to support the creation hypothesis. At the end, in the court of ideas, the side with the most circumstantial evidence will win. Of course winning is not the same as obtaining truth. My belief is that truth is "obtained" through faith. But it is another rabbit trail that warrants a separate discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic