There wasn't a concerted intellectual attack on key Darwinian concepts. So a scientist could raise obvious problems with evolutionary theory without fear of giving aid and comfort to the "enemy."
I think if the good doctor thinks simultaneity is necessary in biological systems to get off the ground, he should say so even if he isn't an ID proponent. If he is retracting this because it is embarrassing to him, that's a problem.
You mean like Michael Behe, who is an ID-proponent? Or many theistic evolutionists?
There are plenty of people in the ID camp, for instance, who believe in evolution per se, but don't believe that blind, naturalistic causes can account for the things we see in nature. There must be intelligent planning, intervention, direction, etc.
Granted, you might be using "creationists" broadly or narrowly. I can't tell.
So he retracts the need for simultaneity because he couldn't prove everything had to be there at once. I assume that's correct. He didn't show it. But the main problem in Origin of Life research is trying to figure out a reasonable step-by-step scenario that doesn't require simultaneity.
In other words, "I retract this and will rely on philosophical pre-commitments." My philosophy requires a step-by-step process. And, by-golly, even though we can't figure it out this many years later, let's just assume there was.
First, I could happily take my positions on my faith and say that Darwinian evolution is how God accomplished what God accomplished.
But as I examined things, as best I could, it became apparent that Darwinian evolution rests not on observation and experiments. It rests on philosophy. There has to be a naturalistic cause, therefore there is a naturalistic cause.
So when people from the ID or creationist camps, say things like X cannot be produced by a step-by-step naturalistic process the response is an appeal to structures that are lost to time or just-so stories.
That's when I realized Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Any data can be incorporated into the paradigm. There is nothing that could be discovered in a biological organism which would make a Darwinist say "random mutation and natural selection can't explain that."
So before convincing me it is true, tell me how it can be falsified. And don't confuse evidence for common descent with evidence for rm+ns.
Also, I have to say the lack of any plausible Origin of Life scenario should be troubling to a Darwinist. The comeback that "evolution only deals with pre-existing life" is silly, because naturalism is what is at issue. If naturalism falls, the foundation of dogmatic Darwinism falls as well. Which brings me back to the main problem with Darwinism, it rests on philosophy and question-begging.
Money is in politics because politics is in money. The patent system makes decisions that affect money, so it is only to be expected that money will do what it can.
I wanted call that a scam, but a natural outworking of interests.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. wouldn't be allowed if we followed your interpretation. And I agree with your interpretation.
This is why the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR tried to pack the court.
People, for the most part, don't want to follow the Constitution. We would have to become libertarians (for the most part) and stop voting ourselves money out of the treasury.
If civilized society redistributes wealth, then civilized society is comprised of stone-cold thieves. Just because you bless stealing with a vote doesn't make it right. You've replaced one tyrant with the tyranny of the many.
My physics class in high school went to Great Adventure. That, I suppose, helped advance science too.
Diet Coke and Mentos experiments advance science as well.
While we're at it, let's put random stuff in the microwave and see what happens. You know, for the advancement of science. Third star from the left and straight on til morning.
People who believe in a God who a) sustains the laws of nature so they are consistent and don't change and b) makes truth knowable have no problems with science.
Miracles and revelation present problems to those who believe in science as an "ism."
If you assume miracles as a barrier to scientific inquiry you are tipping your hat that you have presuppositions and philosophies which preclude the supernatural from the get-go. There is nothing about science, properly done, which excludes or has to include the supernatural.
It is no accident that those with an anti-theistic bent took a while to warm up to the Big Bang. Bad religious ideas can thwart good science. So can bad atheistic ideas.
While debates go on about the balance between security and freedom, this helps put things into perspective.
This is what real repression and censorship looks like. And there are countries standing behind Myanmar preventing economic pressure to be brought to bear.
When it comes to taxes and government, just keep one aspect of the mafia in mind. They want their cut. And we have the legal obligation to give them said cut.
Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."
Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?
Slashdot Mirror
Jason Bourne or someone else from Treadstone, yes. Otherwise, I'll take the nuke.
There wasn't a concerted intellectual attack on key Darwinian concepts. So a scientist could raise obvious problems with evolutionary theory without fear of giving aid and comfort to the "enemy."
I think if the good doctor thinks simultaneity is necessary in biological systems to get off the ground, he should say so even if he isn't an ID proponent. If he is retracting this because it is embarrassing to him, that's a problem.
You mean like Michael Behe, who is an ID-proponent? Or many theistic evolutionists?
There are plenty of people in the ID camp, for instance, who believe in evolution per se, but don't believe that blind, naturalistic causes can account for the things we see in nature. There must be intelligent planning, intervention, direction, etc.
Granted, you might be using "creationists" broadly or narrowly. I can't tell.
So he retracts the need for simultaneity because he couldn't prove everything had to be there at once. I assume that's correct. He didn't show it. But the main problem in Origin of Life research is trying to figure out a reasonable step-by-step scenario that doesn't require simultaneity.
In other words, "I retract this and will rely on philosophical pre-commitments." My philosophy requires a step-by-step process. And, by-golly, even though we can't figure it out this many years later, let's just assume there was.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SCEBLG0&show_article=1
This might be off-topic, but it seems relevant. It appears Comcast is blocking traffic.
You can go to the moon and test it. It turns out not to be cheese. Cheese-moon theory can be falsified.
Darwinism, as presently constructed, cannot be falsified. It absorbs any data and says "wow, look what evolution did. Isn't that something?"
I have no problems with the scientific method.
How could it be falsified? A structure within biological systems could be discovered which a step-by-step naturalistic scenario can't explain.
What you take for knowledge is a circle of assumptions which will not allow for falsification.
First, I could happily take my positions on my faith and say that Darwinian evolution is how God accomplished what God accomplished.
But as I examined things, as best I could, it became apparent that Darwinian evolution rests not on observation and experiments. It rests on philosophy. There has to be a naturalistic cause, therefore there is a naturalistic cause.
So when people from the ID or creationist camps, say things like X cannot be produced by a step-by-step naturalistic process the response is an appeal to structures that are lost to time or just-so stories.
That's when I realized Darwinism is unfalsifiable. Any data can be incorporated into the paradigm. There is nothing that could be discovered in a biological organism which would make a Darwinist say "random mutation and natural selection can't explain that."
So before convincing me it is true, tell me how it can be falsified. And don't confuse evidence for common descent with evidence for rm+ns.
Also, I have to say the lack of any plausible Origin of Life scenario should be troubling to a Darwinist. The comeback that "evolution only deals with pre-existing life" is silly, because naturalism is what is at issue. If naturalism falls, the foundation of dogmatic Darwinism falls as well. Which brings me back to the main problem with Darwinism, it rests on philosophy and question-begging.
"I wouldn't" instead of "I wanted"...
I'll be my own grammar Nazi.
Money is in politics because politics is in money. The patent system makes decisions that affect money, so it is only to be expected that money will do what it can.
I wanted call that a scam, but a natural outworking of interests.
Is being slightly self-contradictory like being slightly pregnant?
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. wouldn't be allowed if we followed your interpretation. And I agree with your interpretation.
This is why the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR tried to pack the court.
People, for the most part, don't want to follow the Constitution. We would have to become libertarians (for the most part) and stop voting ourselves money out of the treasury.
If civilized society redistributes wealth, then civilized society is comprised of stone-cold thieves. Just because you bless stealing with a vote doesn't make it right. You've replaced one tyrant with the tyranny of the many.
My physics class in high school went to Great Adventure. That, I suppose, helped advance science too.
Diet Coke and Mentos experiments advance science as well.
While we're at it, let's put random stuff in the microwave and see what happens. You know, for the advancement of science. Third star from the left and straight on til morning.
How about Axl Rose in Welcome to the Jungle?
Hhhhuuu!!!
I don't think the Stanford Team would like what you are insinuating.
People who believe in a God who a) sustains the laws of nature so they are consistent and don't change and b) makes truth knowable have no problems with science.
Miracles and revelation present problems to those who believe in science as an "ism."
If you assume miracles as a barrier to scientific inquiry you are tipping your hat that you have presuppositions and philosophies which preclude the supernatural from the get-go. There is nothing about science, properly done, which excludes or has to include the supernatural.
It is no accident that those with an anti-theistic bent took a while to warm up to the Big Bang. Bad religious ideas can thwart good science. So can bad atheistic ideas.
From what I hear, countries such as China are preventing sanctions. The other option is to invade.
Except for saying "pretty please don't supress your own people."
While debates go on about the balance between security and freedom, this helps put things into perspective.
This is what real repression and censorship looks like. And there are countries standing behind Myanmar preventing economic pressure to be brought to bear.
We won't hear about this for years and years. 20 years from now, when this can actually be accomplished, there will be another article.
Someone on slashdot will claim it is a dupe.
It isn't obvious to me why they couldn't find obvious what the examiner found non-obvious.
Obviously?
When it comes to taxes and government, just keep one aspect of the mafia in mind. They want their cut. And we have the legal obligation to give them said cut.
Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."
Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?
Here, this may come in handy:
http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php
And by "all" you mean "very few", right?