< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Yale professor’s thoughts on Darwinism

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
12 August 2019 18:58
 
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 04:58 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 03:01 PM

Gelernter is a computer scientist who does not understand the biological sciences that he is criticising; Coyne points out that he also seems “ignorant of the fossil record”.  Gelernter is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.  IMO, it takes a certain amount of self-delusion and/or arrogance to not acknowledge one’s own limitations. 

No amount of sound scientific evidence will convince a staunch creationist/ID supporter of the true nature of the world around them because they are locked into a particular view of the world because of their religious biases.  It’s rather sad that they can’t fully appreciate the truth and beauty of life’s natural evolution.

“Coyne points out that he also seems ‘ignorant of the fossil record’.”  Does he only seem ignorant on that subject, or is he actually ignorant?

“Gelernter is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.  IMO, it takes a certain amount of self-delusion and/or arrogance to not acknowledge one’s own limitations.”  He’s a denier if he isn’t convinced?

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

There is critical, independent thinking and then there is stubborn adherence to obsolete ideas.  Not the same thing at all.  Science never figures everything out – it’s a process.  When over a century of painstaking work by experts from various disciplines, including newer sciences (e.g. DNA), test and confirm the theory and basic principles, adding and expanding on each other’s work, it’s no longer a theory but a new knowledge and understanding of our world.

“Science never figures everything out – it’s a process.”  See comment below -

“When over a century of painstaking work by experts from various disciplines, including newer sciences (e.g. DNA), test and confirm the theory and basic principles, adding and expanding on each other’s work, it’s no longer a theory but a new knowledge and understanding of our world.”  Your statement here doesn’t fit logically with the statement I quoted from you above.  You can’t have it both ways.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
12 August 2019 18:59
 
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 August 2019 20:05
 
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.
And if I’m ever in need of brain surgery, I want a neurosurgeon, not a cardiologist.

[ Edited: 12 August 2019 22:28 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
12 August 2019 20:25
 
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:58 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 04:58 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 03:01 PM

Gelernter is a computer scientist who does not understand the biological sciences that he is criticising; Coyne points out that he also seems “ignorant of the fossil record”.  Gelernter is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.  IMO, it takes a certain amount of self-delusion and/or arrogance to not acknowledge one’s own limitations. 

No amount of sound scientific evidence will convince a staunch creationist/ID supporter of the true nature of the world around them because they are locked into a particular view of the world because of their religious biases.  It’s rather sad that they can’t fully appreciate the truth and beauty of life’s natural evolution.

“Coyne points out that he also seems ‘ignorant of the fossil record’.”  Does he only seem ignorant on that subject, or is he actually ignorant?

“Gelernter is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.  IMO, it takes a certain amount of self-delusion and/or arrogance to not acknowledge one’s own limitations.”  He’s a denier if he isn’t convinced?

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

There is critical, independent thinking and then there is stubborn adherence to obsolete ideas.  Not the same thing at all.  Science never figures everything out – it’s a process.  When over a century of painstaking work by experts from various disciplines, including newer sciences (e.g. DNA), test and confirm the theory and basic principles, adding and expanding on each other’s work, it’s no longer a theory but a new knowledge and understanding of our world.

“Science never figures everything out – it’s a process.”  See comment below -

“When over a century of painstaking work by experts from various disciplines, including newer sciences (e.g. DNA), test and confirm the theory and basic principles, adding and expanding on each other’s work, it’s no longer a theory but a new knowledge and understanding of our world.”  Your statement here doesn’t fit logically with the statement I quoted from you above.  You can’t have it both ways.

Both statements are consistent with each other.  It’s religion that claims to have all the answers to the big questions; science is more complex, takes time and hard work, the answers being found over time and leading to more questions.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
12 August 2019 22:12
 
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Appeal to authority.
While ignoring the collective expertise of evolutionary scientists.

 

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 08:44
 
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 08:05 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.
And if I’m ever in need of brain surgery, I want a neurosurgeon, not a cardiologist.

“Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.”  He didn’t claim expertise, and he doesn’t need to.  Evolutionists aren’t providing hypotheses so difficult to understand that others cannot weigh-in.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 08:45
 
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 08:25 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:58 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 04:58 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 03:01 PM

Gelernter is a computer scientist who does not understand the biological sciences that he is criticising; Coyne points out that he also seems “ignorant of the fossil record”.  Gelernter is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.  IMO, it takes a certain amount of self-delusion and/or arrogance to not acknowledge one’s own limitations. 

No amount of sound scientific evidence will convince a staunch creationist/ID supporter of the true nature of the world around them because they are locked into a particular view of the world because of their religious biases.  It’s rather sad that they can’t fully appreciate the truth and beauty of life’s natural evolution.

“Coyne points out that he also seems ‘ignorant of the fossil record’.”  Does he only seem ignorant on that subject, or is he actually ignorant?

“Gelernter is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.  IMO, it takes a certain amount of self-delusion and/or arrogance to not acknowledge one’s own limitations.”  He’s a denier if he isn’t convinced?

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

There is critical, independent thinking and then there is stubborn adherence to obsolete ideas.  Not the same thing at all.  Science never figures everything out – it’s a process.  When over a century of painstaking work by experts from various disciplines, including newer sciences (e.g. DNA), test and confirm the theory and basic principles, adding and expanding on each other’s work, it’s no longer a theory but a new knowledge and understanding of our world.

“Science never figures everything out – it’s a process.”  See comment below -

“When over a century of painstaking work by experts from various disciplines, including newer sciences (e.g. DNA), test and confirm the theory and basic principles, adding and expanding on each other’s work, it’s no longer a theory but a new knowledge and understanding of our world.”  Your statement here doesn’t fit logically with the statement I quoted from you above.  You can’t have it both ways.

Both statements are consistent with each other.  It’s religion that claims to have all the answers to the big questions; science is more complex, takes time and hard work, the answers being found over time and leading to more questions.

Seems to me that you are wanting to have your cake and eat it.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
13 August 2019 08:46
 
Jefe - 12 August 2019 10:12 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Appeal to authority.
While ignoring the collective expertise of evolutionary scientists.

I was not the one to say that credibility is necessary.  Is credibility authority?  You say that I’m making an appeal to authority fallacy, while in your very next thought you make that very fallacy.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 09:23
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 08:46 AM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 10:12 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Appeal to authority.
While ignoring the collective expertise of evolutionary scientists.

I was not the one to say that credibility is necessary.  Is credibility authority?  You say that I’m making an appeal to authority fallacy, while in your very next thought you make that very fallacy.

Not at all.
Referring you to bodies of evidence from several different peer reviewed disciplines =/= appeal to authority.
I can’t help you understand the difference if you’re immune to evidence that contradicts your position, however.
Within Jan’s linked article are links to several different peer reviews that refute (and contradict) the book (and bad math/probability) used by Meyer and referred to in your Yale prof’s link.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 August 2019 10:24
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 August 2019 08:44 AM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 08:05 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 06:59 PM
Jan_CAN - 12 August 2019 05:26 PM
Jefe - 12 August 2019 04:56 PM
TwoSeven1 - 12 August 2019 04:10 PM

Now, I don’t know David Gelernter, nor do I know all of the research he’s done, his personal views, his biases, etc., but what I do know is the value of thinking independently about an argument.  I don’t believe that Evolutionists have everything firgured out in quite the way that they consistently say they do.

Maybe you would if you actually studied evolution science instead of chasing ID/Creationist fallacies.

Yup, disparaging mainstream science out of hand isn’t demonstrating ‘good’ thinking.  And to seriously consider an argument, I think one needs some idea of the author’s credibility.

Being a professor at Yale isn’t enough credibility?

Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.
And if I’m ever in need of brain surgery, I want a neurosurgeon, not a cardiologist.

“Nope.  A professor can claim expertise in their own (or related) field only.”  He didn’t claim expertise, and he doesn’t need to.  Evolutionists aren’t providing hypotheses so difficult to understand that others cannot weigh-in.

‘Evolutionists’ covers many scientific disciplines and is indeed difficult to understand if not specifically trained in the science.  What the lay/untrained person (including myself) can do is understand the general principles and discoveries by reading books and articles written by experts for the general public.  Which is what I advise you to do, though you show no indication that you want to understand the facts.

Previously you have referred to the mathematics and probabilities in regards to evolution.  What do you think the odds are that millions of reputable scientists in various fields who support the principles and general mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are wrong, and that the relatively few and basically untrained creationists/ID supporters are right?

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

 

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21817
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 10:47
 
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him “street cred” in another context.  He has been in the crucible and, like Shadrach, et al., come out of the fire unscathed.  Or something like that.

[ Edited: 13 August 2019 11:01 by EN]
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 10:53
 
EN - 13 August 2019 10:47 AM
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him “street cred” in another context.  He has been in the crucible and, like Daniel, come out of the fire unscathed.  Or something like that.

He gets to brag to his ID/Creationist buddies that the Sam Harris collective forums didn’t cause his faith to waiver?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 August 2019 10:57
 
EN - 13 August 2019 10:47 AM
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him “street cred” in another context.  He has been in the crucible and, like Daniel, come out of the fire unscathed.  Or something like that.

You’re probably right; I just wish we were able to convince him to re-examine his beliefs in regards to evolution.  I’m a sucker for lost causes.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21817
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 11:02
 
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:57 AM
EN - 13 August 2019 10:47 AM
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him “street cred” in another context.  He has been in the crucible and, like Daniel, come out of the fire unscathed.  Or something like that.

You’re probably right; I just wish we were able to convince him to re-examine his beliefs in regards to evolution.  I’m a sucker for lost causes.

For the record, I must correct my biblical allusion - it was Shadrach, Mischach and Abednego who came out of the fire - Daniel came out of the lion’s den.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21817
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 August 2019 11:03
 
Jefe - 13 August 2019 10:53 AM
EN - 13 August 2019 10:47 AM
Jan_CAN - 13 August 2019 10:24 AM

TwoSeven1, why are you here?  Is it just to troll as has been suggested, or are you trying to convince yourself of something?  You’re not going to learn anything if you are not open to doing so, which is a shame because there are others here who you could’ve learned from.

He’s here to survive the onslaught as that gives him “street cred” in another context.  He has been in the crucible and, like Daniel, come out of the fire unscathed.  Or something like that.

He gets to brag to his ID/Creationist buddies that the Sam Harris collective forums didn’t cause his faith to waiver?

Perhaps. Just a guess.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›