>
>
>On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:01:19 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >CC>Susan, remind me to try to locate my copy of Kelly's book. It's a good
> >book, but Kelly's not an authority on biology. His book is about
> >*computers* and such.
>
>Kelly's book "Out of Control" is subtitled "The New Biology of Machines".
>It is about *artificial* life and deals extensively with computer simulations
>of evolution, which is after all what this thread started by Wesley was
>about.
>
>The book was urged on me by a former Reflectorite who was atheist
>evolutionist
>as evidence for evolution. I was suprised when I read it how devastating it
>is *against* Darwinism!
Chris
The fact that he made such a mistake as he did in the passage you so
blindly quoted demonstrates that he is not an expert on *biology*. In fact,
the book, like many popularizations, was not a formal book even on its own
actual topic.
If you think that quoting his mistakes makes for a devastating case against
Darwinism, you have another think coming. Or, in your case, maybe not, I
don't know. Kelly's smart and intuitive, but not guaranteed accurate.
Though now I simply *must* locate my copy of it and see if I can find some
more of these allegedly "devastating" passages. Perhaps you will supply us
with a few more?
>[...]
>
>This illustrates the duality that I mentioned in another post in this thread:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:31:17 -0400, David Bradbury wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>SJ>It is interesting how often evolutionists
> >have to start their arguments impugning the competence (and often the
> >motives and morality) of the critic.
Chris
My point was simply that Kelly was simply factually wrong in his claim. My
*excuse* for him being wrong was that he is not a biologist, and that the
book was not about biology. Yet, you decided to take *his* word over the
word of actual biologists who have done actual biological research in the
area in question. He's *quite* competent at what he does, which is
popularizing information about new technology, the Internet, and such. I
found both the "Out of Control" book and his more recent one, "New Rules
for the New Economy" inspiring and exciting. I recommend both books.
Stephen
>Their proposition seems to be that
> >evolution is so simple school kids in Kansas should be taught it, and
> >anyone who doesn't believe it is "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked"
> but it is
> >also so hard that mathematicians and philosophers like Schutzenberger and
> >Dembski are not able to understand it in order to criticise it!
Chris
The slew of observations I could make at this point are almost too
delicious to pass up, but I will (this time ;-) ). One reason is that
I don't have the time to repeat the quotes from both of them and my
criticisms, or those of Ellsberry, et al. I *will* point out that there are
counterexamples to Schutzenberger's claims, so, for whatever reasons
(incompetence or not), he was simply *wrong.* Dembski is also wrong with
respect to his attempted design detection mechanism (partly for the same
reasons as Schutzenberger was wrong: After all, though there are
differences between Dembski's "specified complexity" and Schutzenberger's
"functional complexity," they are also relevantly similar).
It simply does not matter, ultimately, *why* Schutzenberger and Dembski are
wrong. Take your pick. The fact that they are wrong does not change
according to whether they are wrong out of intellectual incompetence or
refusal to think or because of brain damage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 20 2000 - 02:58:30 EDT