|
Author
|
Topic: How has Darwinism persisted?
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 14. May 2007 07:10
David,
THE THIRD CHOICE
You present the traditional or conventional choice between teleology and materialism. This might better be characterized as the choice between 1) spiritual or intelligent agency teleology and 2) unknowable simple determinism. You, and your counterparts in academic science, are, in effect, attempting to frame the scientific analysis of intelligent causation as a choice between two equally unscientific metaphysical approaches.
It is important to recognize that neither approach actually produces logically consistent sets of testable predictive theories and neither approach is compatible with the use or application of the formal scientific paradigm or process of formal scientific analysis.
I suspect that the supposed conflict between spiritual teleology and unknowable (imaginary) materialism would have been resolved long ago if either approach had it been possible to use hard science methodologies and real science theories to compare and evaluate the two approaches.
To answer John’s question from another thread, hard science or real science is the human behavior of scientific analysis that 1) produces testable predictive theories that meet all the formal requirements for predictive theories, and that 2) uses the formal falsify and replace scientific method to modify and refine these predictive theories. While some aspects of the scientific method and some aspects of scientific theories are far more complex than they may appear on the surface, the basic concepts and methods of real science are taught even at the grade school level.
Despite the fact that the basic concepts and principles are well known, an amazing percentage of even those with formal education are unable to perform such basic scientific tasks as producing a logically precise definition and quantification of a variable. Also an amazing percentage of trained individuals appear capable of recognizing the presence or absence of real predictive theories in behaviors that get labeled (or mislabeled) as scientific analysis.
To my knowledge, there is only one approach that permits the formal scientific analysis of complex phenomenon involving intelligent causation and that is the approach involving scientific teleology. In terms of the teleology versus materialism dichotomy, scientific teleology is the third and correct choice.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. May 2007 15:29
Why do I insist on wasting my time?
[ 15. May 2007, 15:52: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 20. May 2007 20:54
LifeEngineer
quote:
Once it is recognized that evolutionary processes can be addressed scientifically using teleological theories, the issue of materialism comes down to the question of whether or not goal variables are considered material or non-material. From a scientific perspective, there are no meaningful differences between teleological and traditional non-teleological variables. Therefore if you decide to define teleological variables as material, then ID becomes a material science. If you decide to define goal variables as immaterial, then physics becomes an immaterial science.
Please reexamine your assertion in light of the four forces of nature and intelligent causes. Your "third option" of "goal variables" as "material" appears to be sophistry to claim intelligent causation by algorithmic causes to officially avoid intelligent causation. I find this violates all foundations of logic and knowledge. Is see no benefit of equating the two. You appear to be trying to avoid facing the consequence of Intelligent Causation at all costs.
Such equivocation is one of the reasons Darwinism has persisted, instead of recognizing its inability to explain either complex specified complexity or intelligent causation.
[ 20. May 2007, 20:55: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 21. May 2007 09:23
Quote: Please reexamine your assertion in light of the four forces of nature and intelligent causes. Your "third option" of "goal variables" as "material" appears to be sophistry to claim intelligent causation by algorithmic causes to officially avoid intelligent causation.
The first point to be examined is the ability of scientists to define and quantify goal variables using the same basic concepts and techniques used to define and quantify variables such as temperature or color or mass. Whether scientific temperature variables and scientific goal variables are labeled material or conceptual is not particularly relevant. After once again reviewing the scientific validity of goal variables, I see no reason that goal variables are not legitimate scientific variables. Do you disagree?
The second and third and fourth points to be reexamined are 2) Do teleological theories or theories that include goal variables as causal variables satisfy the theory requirements of the scientific paradigm and 3) Do teleological theories scientifically express and scientifically explain intelligent causation? and 4) Is there a legitimate scientific alternative to scientific explanations of intelligent causation explained by teleological theories?
I have reexamined each of these questions and my answers are still the same. Do you disagree or would you like to discuss the technical details behind any of the three issues?
The final issue to be reexamined is the impact of this third ‘scientific teleology’ option on the survival of Darwinism? In other words, does scientific teleology imply the end or death of Darwinism, or does it provide near life to a widely discredited non-scientific ideology? It is probably useful to start by noting that both modern academic biology and conventional ID are strongly opposed to the idea that teleology and intelligent causation can be incorporated into real or hard science analysis. To the modern biologists, rejecting scientific teleology and scientific analysis of intelligent causation means there are no direct scientific challenges to the modern Darwinian beliefs that strayed a very long ways from scientifically or mathematically or logically justifiable concepts. To the traditional or religious based IDist, rejection of scientific teleology and scientific intelligent causation means their cosmic or metaphysical beliefs only need to compete with a logically and factually flawed modern Darwinism.
Scientific teleology is certainly a very serious and direct threat to the political structures of modern anti-intelligence, anti-teleology biology. But it is not necessarily a threat to Darwinism. Darwin’s original theory, despite modern denials, was a scientific teleology theory. Based on current knowledge, we know that evolution is a far more complex process and far different process than what Darwin understood. ut even adjusted for modern knowledge, evolution remains a teleological process.
It is probably safe to suggest that scientific teleology is an unwanted third option for all the individuals on both sides who what to frame the evolution problem as a simple choice between modern ideological Darwin and various forms of cosmic ID. But even after reexamining the issues, scientific teleology remains a strong third option.
IP: Logged
|
|
iconasostacles
Member
Member # 5227
|
posted 27. July 2007 12:53
It appears that an appetite is building among many serious thinkers, an appetite for rational teleology. It is natural, then, that these people look to established scienctific habits and speculate upon the posible (even necessary) introduction of teleological variables in a rigorous and clarifying fashion.
The question becomes: Why does there persists this seemingly idiotic division between semi-explanatory Neo-Darwinism and barely-explanatory variants of Intelligent Design?
That question is then filtered into appropriate context. One manifestation is, "Why do official Darwinists have such trouble acceptable the rational utility of teleological models?"
And of course... habit, entrenched interests, political collectivity, failure to have "bumped into" just the right explanation... these seem likely but hardly satisfying. They describe but don't quite explain.
One of the major sources of difficulty in this area is that the multiple lines of human intelligence are often overlooked. There is no "pure" discussion between two individuals of comparable intellect. Such discussion will also always be modulated by their relative 'intelligence' or 'complexity' in the matters of emotion, spirituality, aesthetics, etc.
The 'reasons' behind the entrenched support of any established modality of investigation have their own, largely uninvestigated, set of predisposing factors. We simply do not yet know to what degree the different ways in which children observe the structure of, say, flowers might permit or not permit a later-life intuitive understanding of how telelogical would simply and carry forward a rigoruous cognitive model of Reality.
We need to look at factors that are objective (structurally accurate), subjective (developmental) and intersubjective (political).
If this is the 'way forward' for thinking - what are the necessary preconditions for such thinkers are are required?
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 24. August 2007 03:15
quote:
http://oneblogaday.com/web/2007/04/15/pharyngula-evolution-development-and-random-biological-ejaculations/
I have just addressed some of these issues especially in what I hope to be near the end of this thread which I just left with my message #614!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Novisad,
There have been a couple of late responses to the thread you link to, for example: quote:
David Marjanović Says:
John A. Davison Says:
quote:
If you had read this blog you would know that I already explained the cane toads. Bufo marinus was an introduced species. It is characteristic of species when exploding into a new environment to demonstrate dramatic departureds from the species norm.
No, you haven’t explained the observation.
If you were right (I note, BTW, that you accept the existence and continued action of natural selection!), why doesn’t the cane toad show “departures” in all directions? Why do the maximum, the average, and the minimum leg length all go up?
Your “explanation” predicts that the maximum should increase, the minimum should decrease, and the average should not move at all. This is not what we observe.
Yet another of your hypotheses has been falsified. Get over it like the scientist you counterfactually claim to be.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:32 am
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 08. October 2007 05:02
quote:
No, you haven’t explained the observation.
It is explained by Variation Inducing Genetic Elements (VIGE) that provide an organism a reproductive advantage in a particular environment. VIGEs are present in the genome to rapidly induce variation because they have the ability to affect genetic programs, such as body size, metabolism, etc. VIGEs carry genetic information for excision and reintergration required for transposition. VIGEs are currently known as "endogenous retroviral elements", and are usually interpreted as remnants of viruses that a long time ago invaded the genome. It is of course the other way around: Viruses have their origin in VIGEs. There is plenty of scientific evidence to substantiate these claims.
[ 08. October 2007, 05:03: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. October 2007 05:29
My only point is that increasing leg length in cane toads will never result in a new species of toads. I will bet no one has even tested hybrid fertlity with Cuban Bufo marinus. What we observe all over the natural world are nothing but the final intraspecific twitches of an evolution finished long ago.
I repeat my conviction that there is probably not a single extant organism that will ever transcend its present species status. There is only one thing left for the present biota and that is extinction.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
"Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement?
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71.
Yes Pierre and thank you for your support, albeit from the grave!
[ 08. October 2007, 22:28: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. October 2007 06:02
Incidentally, I have never denied natural selection. It is entirely anti-evolutionary and operates only to permit the continued existence of the species without significant change, a conclusion independently reached by Leo Berg and Reginald C. Punnett.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection ARE NOT progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406, my emphasis.
"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed."
Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152, my emphasis.
In other words, natural selection is in accord with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and never had anything to do with creative evolution.
Neither did sexual reproduction which provides, with allelic mutations, the raw materials which natural selection eliminates with great efficiency now as in the past. There is NOTHING in the Darwinian model that ever had ANYTHING to do with a progressive ascending evolution, an evolution now complete.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 08. October 2007, 06:07: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic