biology (was Re: *Physical constants)

From: David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000 - 10:58:13 EST

  • Next message: Massie: "[Fwd: Re: biology (was Re: *Physical constants)]"

    >Biologists on the other hand are frequently scholed in evolutionary
    >thinking and therefore its philosophical import.

    Actually, I think that the problem is better described as not being
    schooled in its philosophical import. The inherent philosophical import of
    biological evolution (i.e., the physical process) or any other scientific
    evidence is nothing whatsoever. Only by making some philosophical
    assumption about the world can we then see if there is a match with the
    scientific data. Obviously, it makes sense to collect and interpret data
    only if you believe it represents something real, but it is possible to go
    through the motions while denying its significance. However, with so many
    atheists and creationists claiming that biological evolution has inherent
    philosophical implications, it is not too surprising that many biologists
    believe this without thinking about it.

    >The real issue is macromutations. The real issue is wholesale invention
    >of organs. Why, lets take the eye for example. what an idea.

    Evolution of the eye is relatively easy to bring about gradually, as all
    the intermediate steps are useful, not to mention the full range of degree
    of eye development. A single light-sensitive cell is enough to detect
    light versus dark, which could indicate time of day, approaching shadow, or
    exposure versus hiding. All of those are useful information. Increases in
    complexity allow improved visual acuity, useful for more detailed
    information about the surroundings. For example, even though I am very
    nearsighted, without my glasses I can still get a lot of useful information
    about objects, such as avoiding obstacles while moving. In the case of
    color vision in primates, the specific mutations involved in evolving from
    colorblindness to full 3 color vision are known. The different forms of
    eyes in different groups also shows that there is more than one way to see
    a cat. Although meeting the common goal of good vision, the variation
    among eyes shows that many different ways of getting to that goal exist.
    In ID terms, they are not highly specified.

    >> >Reality is that evolution is inserted in the text here and there
    >> >almost as a chant to some unknown god but not realy for much
    >> >explanatory power and certainly and absolutely no predictive
    >> >power.

    That is true of almost everything in an introductory textbook. I looked at
    one recently to see how well it covered mollusks. None of their figures
    are free of misidentification.

    David C.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 10:56:19 EST