|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2005 : 03:25:30
|
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/900/924.html
Video & transcript.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2005 : 05:47:04 [Permalink]
|
Notice this little sudden change from Wells' first definition (all emphasis mine)
quote:
And the second aspect is modification, which for Darwin was due primarily to natural selection acting on random variations.
To this later definition
quote:
...rather than undirected natural causes such as variation of selection.
I'm not sure what he means here by variation of selection. Was he trying to equate random variation with natural selection? Did he misspeak? Is he talking about changes in the envrionment which causes changes in natural selection? Stange.
Later
quote:
Well that's why I said undirected natural causes. It's true that there is a non-random component but in Darwinian Theory, it's still undirected. There's no goal involved.
While evolution is not directed by any higher goal or higher intelligence it most certainly is directed by natural selection towards a goal of adapatation for a niche within a specific environment.
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2005 : 13:31:25 [Permalink]
|
I think it is clear he understands that evolution is not a purely random process, that it has mechanisms which direct it which are non-random.
When asked about how to test the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells first replies, "You mention Michael Behe, irreducible complexity."
However, irreducible complexity can only show that evolution doesn't work. Irreducible complexity put in a logical form is:
Assume evolution is true.
If so, we should have no irreducibly complex systems.
We do, so there is a contradiction.
Therefore evolution is false.
But this has nothing at all to do with ID. He then talks about dropping blocks on the floor and how they won't "mean" anything, which is of course just another form of "information can't come from nothing." It also excludes a non-random feature that evolution has, in particular Natural Selection. And once again, he is only trying to show evolution false, he doesn't even talk about ID.
The entire thing is a false dichotomy. And even if evolution is false, it only becomes an argument from ignorance.
I was really hoping to get an answer to how to test ID. I guess I'll just keep on hoping.
Edit:
Oh, I forgot one thing. Throughout the entire debate, Jonathan Wells keeps on referring to Darwin when talking about evolution, which is a huge mistake. You can't talk about Darwinian evolution in a debate unless the topic is history. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 04/15/2005 13:33:52 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2005 : 14:06:36 [Permalink]
|
It's absolutely amazingly how little Wells had to say about the theory he holds. "It is scientific, but only in that it pokes holes in a scientific theory." "There is a way to test for design, but it's more of a conditional judgement call that may eventually be wrong." "ID is science and should be taught in science classes, only not right now as the theory is still too 'new.'"
Sheesh. These guys have nothing. And yet he concludes that ID will win over the scientific establishment within 2 decades? Are these guys that deluded or that dishonest?
Edited to add: I have a new found respect for Pigliucci. The first I heard of him was through the links on this site. I thought he did a fantastic job of giving Wells just enough rope to hang himself, always asking the appropriate questions and never letting inconsistancies slip past. Of course, perhaps some of that may have to do with a fair moderator. So much for evolutionists doing poorly in debates!
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/15/2005 17:55:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2005 : 17:23:29 [Permalink]
|
| Ricky, no proponent if ID has ever presented a positive, testable prediction which follows from their hypothesis. Don't expect an old hand at this like Wells to start now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
