Re: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle - Darwin's original sin

From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
Date: Tue May 12 2009 - 12:35:49 EDT

Schwarzwald wrote:
>
> Imagine we had what Cameron requests: A full and stepwise account of
> the development of how the avian lung was formed, how the camera eye
> was formed - in fact, how everything was formed. What's more, go ahead
> and assume that the mechanisms to form these things were all
> neo-darwinian in nature - to make it vastly oversimplified, it was all
> mutation and natural selection. Would we then be able to finally say
> 'See? No designer is needed whatsoever. Everything can be accounted
> for by purposeless, goalless processes.'?
>
Good post. I say No to both questions as well and that such questions
are likely part of world view/philosophy. Even if Dembski's work were
shown to be valid, it seems to me that scientific and mathematical
methods can be used to support claims outside of science. For example
in debugging large computer programs, one forms a thesis as to what the
scenario of events that might cause a given problem and then tries to
test/review the code to falsify or justify the scenario. Frequently the
scenario becomes a just so story as it is falsified. However, I would
not call debugging a part of science, but more a part of engineering.

My concern as I posted last week is that we do not seem to have what
Cameron asks for with regards to even one major transition eg from fish
to land dweller which is one of the most likely places to get such
evidence since the best and most frequent fossils seem to come from an
aquatic environment. Yes I saw Randy's post about the fish found in
northern Canada, but that is a long way from all the steps. I have just
finished reading Coyne's book and other than his insistence on
metaphysical naturalism I found the book excellent. He talks about
cases where long decorative tails increase the chance of mating in some
birds and describes an experiment where the tails were shortened and it
was observed that the chance of mating was decreased. But then he also
describes what happened when the tail was artificially lengthened with
the result that the chances of mating were increased, the point being
that the scientists tried to falsify their conclusion in many possible
ways as all good scientists should do. However, when it comes to major
changes he basically just waved his hands and complained about people
requiring more from the evolutionists than say from relativity to
demonstrate their conclusions. One of my thoughts was that the
conclusions of physicists don't really impact many peoples world view
the way evolution does.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 12 12:36:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 12 2009 - 12:36:41 EDT