Who wrote this?

[Jorge]

"What is certain is that the Darwinian explanatory framework is logically confused and scientifically superficial with respect to the phenomena of normativity, teleology, and agency. Darwinism is a gigantic obstacle obscuring these important problems from our view, and I doubt we will make much progress towards solving them so long as Darwinian dogma retains its death grip on the minds of so many."


Who does the above quote belong to? Here are your choices:

A. Kenneth Miller, PhD Theistic Evolutionist
B. Eugenie Scott, PhD Evolutionist Atheist
C. Some other Atheist holding a PhD
D. Dr. Dino - Kent Hovind
E. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis
F. Jorge Fernandez (me)
G. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD
H. Richard Dawkins, PhD
I. Daniel Dennett, PhD
J. Someone else not listed above ............

***********************************************************

[drumroll] ... For the answer, go to this link : http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05..._of059861.html

Enjoy!

Jorge

[phank]

Golly, a graduate student in history and philosophy, who doesn't know biology from Beethoven, has decided that somehow the "philosophy of biology" doesn't make sense to him, and THEREFORE biology must be wrong! (Oh yeah, almost forgot. Praise Jesus!)

And his introspective, uninformed blathering can be found at (drumroll...) a CREATIONIST WEBSITE! Who would'a thunk?

[Catholicity]

Oh look Jim's foil is back from vacation

[pancreasman]

teleogy and agency?? What does that have to do with biology? I confess I have no idea what 'normativity' is.

[shunyadragon]

teleogy and agency?? What does that have to do with biology? I confess I have no idea what 'normativity' is.

It's the temperature at your belly button when your head is in the oven and your feet are in ice.

[phank]

It might have something to do with the fact that "normativity, teleology, and agency" are not "phenomena" at all, but are rather preconceptions biology is expected (by Believers) to accommodate. And by golly, biology doesn't cooperate. And Darwinism is nothing but a proposal of how things actually happen, and is silent on what Believers NEED to happen. It must be "superficial"!

Someone is confused for sure, but it's not biology. Biology is working just dandy.

[USIncognito]

Doesn't Dr. 2595 know after his 10k+ posts that you can add a poll to the OP, you don't have to make it part of your OP?

[wattsr1]

"What is certain is that the Darwinian explanatory framework is logically confused and scientifically superficial with respect to the phenomena of normativity, teleology, and agency. Darwinism is a gigantic obstacle obscuring these important problems from our view, and I doubt we will make much progress towards solving them so long as Darwinian dogma retains its death grip on the minds of so many."


Who does the above quote belong to? Here are your choices:

A. Kenneth Miller, PhD Theistic Evolutionist
B. Eugenie Scott, PhD Evolutionist Atheist
C. Some other Atheist holding a PhD
D. Dr. Dino - Kent Hovind
E. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis
F. Jorge Fernandez (me)
G. Jonathan Sarfati, PhD
H. Richard Dawkins, PhD
I. Daniel Dennett, PhD
J. Someone else not listed above ............

***********************************************************

[drumroll] ... For the answer, go to this link : http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05..._of059861.html

Enjoy!

Jorge

I liked this bit:-

Intelligent agency, therefore, is a mechanism which we can observe and understand in the world around us, and from those observations we know it alone is capable of producing high CSI. But the skeptic wasn't satisfied with this argument. He insisted what ID lacks is a mechanism that, at the direction of an intelligent agent, could be capable of instantiating information, or design, in the real world. As we spoke after the talk, I asked him, "Why should it be so hard to believe that intelligent agents can implement their designs in the real world? After all, we see intelligent agents manipulating the information in DNA all the time."

The irony. Once more Luskin seems to think that Darwin’s in for a pounding by this work.

However, what we do observe these days is that there are times in which intelligent designers, on realising that they are able to understand systems of supposedly high CSI, but wishing nevertheless to derive formulae to describe them, or to take their design a step further, return to ....

... you guessed it, systems that simulate Darwin’s version of evolution, namely:-

1) mutate individuals in a population,
2) allow them to compete,
3) select individuals that perform better,
4) breed those individuals,
5) go to 1)

Evolutionary algorithms/Genetic algorithms are growing in their use in engineering and other disciplines. They take a seemingly complex system and, using a Darwinian process, derive solutions to problems associated with it, problems whose solutions are inconceivable to the intelligent minds of their designers.

It’s kind of as if the ID took on something that brought about issues beyond its mind to solve, and so it invented nature with an inbuilt evolutionary process to determine the solutions to problems beyond its ken.

Arguing by analogy from the world we see to the world of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, invisible designer, whose ways are beyond our ways, is fraught with danger.


So what do you reckon Jorge? By extension, God created nature such that evolution was inbuilt?

[Jorge]

Golly, a graduate student in history and philosophy, who doesn't know biology from Beethoven, has decided that somehow the "philosophy of biology" doesn't make sense to him, and THEREFORE biology must be wrong! (Oh yeah, almost forgot. Praise Jesus!)

And his introspective, uninformed blathering can be found at (drumroll...) a CREATIONIST WEBSITE! Who would'a thunk?

***************************************************

Bwahahahaha This is soooooo funny!

Anyone not bowing to the Sacred Cow of Darwinism gets
booted out of the Evo-Faithful Flock even if he happens
to be a "fellow Atheist".

Equally funny is your remark, "... doesn't know biology
from Beethoven". Indeed, anyone (Creationist, Atheist,
whatever) that doesn't worship at the Evo-Altar, MUST
not know any biology. WOW - incredible 'logic' !!!

If it weren't for the fact that the attitude of you people is
tragically pathetic, it would be an unending joke. Alas,
the "joke" will undoubtedly end for you one day.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I liked this bit:-



The irony. Once more Luskin seems to think that Darwin’s in for a pounding by these results.

However, what we do observe these days is that there are times in which intelligent designers, on realising that they are able to understand systems of supposedly high CSI, but wishing nevertheless to derive formulae to describe them, or to take their design a step further, return to ....

... you guessed it, systems that simulate Darwin’s version of evolution, namely:-

1) mutate individuals in a population,
2) allow them to compete,
3) select individuals that perform better,
4) breed those individuals,
5) go to 1)

Evolutionary algorithms/Genetic algorithms are growing in their use in engineering and other disciplines.

It’s kind of as if the ID took on something that brought about issues beyond its mind to solve, and so it invented nature with an inbuilt evolutionary process to determine the solutions to problems beyond its ken.

Arguing by analogy from the world we see to the world of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, invisible designer, whose ways are beyond our ways, is fraught with danger.


So what do you reckon Jorge? By extension, God created nature such that evolution was inbuilt?

****************************************************

Hi Roland ... look, as nicely and as concisely as I can put it : you simply don't
know what you're talking about. More specifically, you are mixing apples with
bazookas. There are reasons why "genetic / evolutionary" algorithms yield
some successes. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the religious
belief in "molecules-to-men". You should know better (but you don't) than to
try to fool an old war horse like me. Try again next year.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Doesn't Dr. 2595 know after his 10k+ posts that you can add a poll to the OP, you don't have to make it part of your OP?

********************************************************

Hey, Einstein, a poll makes no sense if the answer if GIVEN, as I did.
Here's a dime ... go buy yourself a used, discarded brain.

Jorge

[Jorge]

teleogy and agency?? What does that have to do with biology? I confess I have no idea what 'normativity' is.

************************************************

Have you tried READING the article? Or maybe you need this:
Remedial Reading Classes are held once a week at the local YMCA.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

****************************************************

Hi Roland ... look, as nicely and as concisely as I can put it : you simply don't
know what you're talking about. More specifically, you are mixing apples with
bazookas. There are reasons why "genetic / evolutionary" algorithms yield
some successes. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the religious
belief in "molecules-to-men". You should know better (but you don't) than to
try to fool an old war horse like me. Try again next year.

Jorge

Gidday Jorge,


Ah, so you are now happy with birds evolving from dinosaurs, whales evolving from land dwelling hippo like animals, humans evolving from ape like ancestors, just so long as it's not "molecules to man evolution"?

I see that latter term used a lot by the folk at AiG these days. Given that the authors of articles there accept:-

1) random mutation,

2) natural selection,

3) speciation,

4) gene duplication,

5) etc, as long as it's not "molecules to man evolution",

- then I wonder if the organisation is priming you folk up for another leap in your imagination. Namely, within a few more decades you will be accepting natural evolution of things like birds from dinosaurs, whales from land dwelling animals, and so on. Just so long as it's not "molecules to man evolution".

[Jorge]

And his introspective, uninformed blathering can be found at
(drumroll...) a CREATIONIST WEBSITE! Who would'a thunk?

**********************************************************************

Hey, Sherlock, allow me to give you a clue ..............

It doesn't matter if this guy's quote appeared on :
United Creationists of America Website
United Atheists of America Website
United Buddhists of America Website
United Muslims of America Website
United Hindus of America Website
United Steel Workers of America Website
Basket Weavers of the World Website
Darwin Worshipers Website
...
etc ...
...

THE QUOTE REMAINS THE SAME !!!

Good heavens you people are dumb !!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Gidday Jorge,


Ah, so you are now happy with birds evolving from dinosaurs, whales evolving from land dwelling hippo like animals, humans evolving from ape like ancestors, just so long as it's not "molecules to man evolution"?

I see that latter term used a lot by the folk at AiG these days. Given that the authors of articles there accept:-

1) random mutation,

2) natural selection,

3) speciation,

4) gene duplication,

5) etc, as long as it's not "molecules to man evolution",

- then I wonder if the organisation is priming you folk up for another leap in your imagination. Namely, within a few more decades you will be accepting natural evolution of things like birds from dinosaurs, whales from land dwelling animals, and so on. Just so long as it's not "molecules to man evolution".

**************************************************

Last waste of time .....................

I have stated often that there is a SCIENTIFIC evolution : allele frequencies in populations
do indeed change in time. This is verifiable true science. But molecules-to-man,
dino-to-bird, cow-to-whale, slime-to-Tiggy ... is NOT verifiable true science.
It is a religious belief system meant to take God out of the picture. One day you
will grasp what that means. Will you ever accept it? God only knows.

Okay ... enough time wasted. Don't bother to reply.

Jorge