Re: Panda's from 1995

From: gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 18:37:56 EST

A textbook author should be trying to communicate with his readers. If he
uses a phrase that is likely to mean something different to his readers
from what it does to him, he ought to include an explanation of what he
really means in order not to be misunderstood.

Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Rich,
>
> I would still contend that "without plan or purpose" is not
> inconsistent with theistic evolution IF it is understood from the
> perspective of the created thing. We use language of like this all
> the time to describe things in the universe--why is it such a problem
> in biology?.
>
> Of course, it's not true from the point of view of the Creator, from
> an orthodox Christian perspective. I will concede Cornelius Hunter's
> point that Darwin and most evolutionists after him do not share that
> theological perspective, but that does not mean that the language is
> not reasonable or that "from a scientific" perspective that "without
> plan or purpose" is not the case.
>
> If there is a "plan and purpose" that is detectable scientifically,
> then I'm all ears. Where is it? How is it imposed on organisms and
> ecosystems?
>
> I think Miller conceded to Wiester much too quickly.
>
> TG
>
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/05, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu > wrote:
> > Check this out: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/docs/asa_doc8.txt
> >
> > TG
> >
> >
> > Interesting. Note the following:
> > Following these presentations were interactions with the audience.
> > John
> > Wiester quoted from Miller's book, Biology (K. Miller and J. Levine,
> > Prentice-Hall, 1993, p. 658):
> >
> > "In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the
> > design of
> > body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of
> > course,
> > there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because
> > evolution
> > works without either plan or purpose."
> >
> > He then asked Ken if he would consider this science or philosophy.
> > John's
> > point was that B.'s ideological implications are significant and worth
> > considering for revision in the next edition of the book.
> >
> > MSNBC reported at the Dover trial said he missed the reference.
> > Miller also backed off a statement in a 1995 biology textbook he co-
> > wrote that said evolution was "random and undirected." Miller said
> > he missed that reference by a co-author and that he did not believe
> > evolution was random and undirected.
> >
> > Yet, this shows that the reference was brought to his attention in
> > the same year that the book was published. Further, the phrase was
> > apparently not removed in the 1998 or 2000 editions.
> >
> > In spite of author Kenneth Miller's pledge to the American
> > Scientific Affiliation in August of 1995 to remove the phrases that
> > "evolution is without plan or purpose" and "evolution is random and
> > undirected" because they represent ideology masquerading as
> > science, this identical language reappeared in the 1998 and 2000
> > editions.
> >
> > Could someone with access to recent editions of Biology please
> > verify this? Could someone with access to the trial transcripts get
> > Miller's exact words on the stand as the MSNBC article does not
> > directly quote him? If pro-teleology is not allowed then neither
> > should anti-teleology. As such, Miller should be held to his pledge.
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 12 18:39:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 18:39:43 EST