John Volpe wrote:
> >It this is so, surely you can point out several of these circularities for me. I
> >am ashamed to admit that I did not find them in two readings of the book.
>
> Please refer to the evolution list archives - examples in abundance.
I suspected you could not. I simply expressed an opinion based on scientific evidence
accepted by many scientists far more knowledgable than I. If you want to disprove it
don't ask me to go through a bunch of archives. It is smoke.
> >> Please spare us another attack from the legion of the self proclaimed
> visionaries!
> >
> >Me a visionary? How quaint. Just because I am one among many who gave up on
> >evolution as a bad job? Explain, please. Or was this just an empty flame?
>
> Issues in science (as well as any facet of modern society) are complex. As
> those toiling in various disciplines uncover and describe new components and
> relationships, the magnitude of that complexity grows concordantly. This is
> not to say that these components (DNA molecules, cells, individuals,
> populations, species) interact in an unpredictable manner, quite the
> opposite in fact. The co-evolution of honey bees and flowering plants is
> well documented, predictable and elegant in its lucidity. However, thorough
> understanding of such systems and the template on which they operate
> (evolutionary mechanics in this case) does not come without a serious
> investment of time and effort on the part of the unbiased investigator. Such
> works as Denton owe their popularity to the fact that inherent complexity of
> the subject matter is paired away, replaced by the preferential picking and
> choosing of incomplete examples for presentation to support a biased a
> priori (made in advance) assumption. Such snippets of data, although
> plausible or even logical to the casual reader at large, are falsified when
> a rigorous treatment of the complete data set is carried out. If there is
> any doubt in regards to the power of this strategy consider the ravenous
> popularity of the world according to Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. A pair
> of diametrically opposed characters who have made their respective (and very
> comfortable) livings from selective sampling of the others' platform. The
> masses aligned along each side take heart in the illusion of truth (read:
> rhetoric) sermonized by thief respective "visionary" as it justifies each
> camp's biases thereby releasing individuals from the responsibility of
> rigorously investigating, examining and understanding the reality for
> himself/herself. The only difference between Denton and Limbagh/Stern is
> that the general public perceives they have more at stake if gay men serve
> in the US military than when Archaeopteryx spp. and a robin shared a common
> ancestor.
A rather long winded way of simply saying you disagree with me. Why bother if you do not
find this appropriate to BEE-L. Or why not send it to me individually (many have so
responded).
> >> "The surest way to be deceived is to consider oneself cleverer than others."
> >> François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613-80)
> >
> >This is very true, but I fail to see where it applies in your arguement.
> >Is this another empty flame?
> >
> Surely not, with all due respect, how else does one defend the indefensible
> without a certain measure of self deceit?
Many well educated, knowledgable scientists disagree with the point that I am dealing
with the indefensible. And I am not speaking of CSI and their ilk. Evolutionary
specialists are not as dogmatic as you seem to be. Forgive me for being blunt, but this
is exactly the response I (and Denton) were refering to. The paradigm reigns over
reason, just as it did for Flat Earthers and other such. So it seems to be an empty
flame. Send those to me individually, if you please. There are those who prefer not to
use their delete button.
--
"Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Tom Elliott
Eagle River, Alaska
U.S.A.
[log in to unmask]
|
