>*** Bye for now -- Science versus Religion -- Extinction ***
>
Bye :-)
>For over two years I have discussed my book (_The Biotic Message_) with
>opponents on reflectors, talk.origins, and private e-mail. Almost all my
>free time has gone there. As much as I love that form of dialogue, it is
>ephemeral, fleetingly transitory, and limited in the number of people who
>will ever see it. I end up spoon feeding my book to the uninitiated (and
>oftentimes even to opponents who are arguing against my book without having
>seriously read it). What is more, I end up having to repeat it all over
>again for various people and forums.
>
>A few months back I made a brief post clarifying a small aspect of Popper's
>Recantation. It is a simple, well-confined issue, I thought -- I wouldn't
>get dragged in, I hoped.
<8-/
Perhaps Walter has forgotten that postings to this group are now archived?
>
>But soon the reflector discussion splayed in
>various directions, with many people piling on, asking questions, making
>charges -- The usual rough and tumble. Before long, the reflector became my
>life. Does this sound familiar?
>
Yes it does sound familiar ;-)
[...]
>
>Here is Tim's central argument against my theory:
>
>>[I]t is a question of whether a creator bounded by the axioms
>>of the message hypothesis would have permitted group
>>extinctions, considering; 1) that such a pattern would
>>definitely resemble or "look like" evolution;
>
>Tim says the biotic message is false because life "looks like" evolution.
>Yet he has not identified any conceivable situation that would look *unlike*
>evolution. That's why his argument fails.
>
No Walter, that's why it succeeds ;-).
Seriously, am I the only one to be confused by this? Perhaps I have to
break down and read Walter's book :-). Here's what confuses me:
The biotic message is supposed to make it clear that life is the
work of a single designer. Its supposed to resist evolutionary
explanations. Yet Tim is criticized because he cannot identify
any conceivable situation that would look *unlike* evolution.
It doesn't seem that the message is putting up much resistance.
What should one conclude from this message? Well, let's see. I
can't identify any conceivable situation that would look unlike
evolution, therefore evolution is false?
<<How does that saying go? If it looks like a duck, walks like
a duck, quacks like duck .......>>
I can think of no reason why matter should have this mysterious property
called inertia. Yet I cannot identify any conceivable situation where
matter would not have this property. What should I conclude?
Perhaps this is related to another "complaint" of Walters, ie that
when evolutionists falsify one theory of evolution they replace it by
another theory of evolution. Thus evolution itself is not falsifiable.
But there is a good reason for always replacing one theory of
evolution by another theory of evolution. Any theory proposed
that was not a theory of *evolution* would be immediately
falsified by the data.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================