I Cannot Embrace Evolution... I Just Can't.

[freeasabird]

The ones who don't are either uneducated, on the lunatic fringe, or both. What's respectable about that? They deserve to be belittled.

 

My son is one of those people. He's well educated, makes good money, and is a normal southern baptist. I had to give up the "they're either stupid or crazy" idea. It's early indoctrination (thanks to my fundy mom) and it's hard to shake when it's firmly ingrained in the subconscious. There are nutbags amonst them, I agree, but some of the IDers are quite normal otherwise.

Brainwashing.

 

57% or better of Christians reject evolution.

[Thought2Much]

The ones who don't are either uneducated, on the lunatic fringe, or both. What's respectable about that? They deserve to be belittled.

 

My son is one of those people. He's well educated, makes good money, and is a normal southern baptist. I had to give up the "they're either stupid or crazy" idea. It's early indoctrination (thanks to my fundy mom) and it's hard to shake when it's firmly ingrained in the subconscious. There are nutbags amonst them, I agree, but some of the IDers are quite normal otherwise.

Brainwashing.

 

57% or better of Christians reject evolution.

 

I'd be willing to be that most of that 57% is Catholic and Episcopalian, and almost zero of it is fundamentalist Baptist or pentecostal (Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, etc.). The attitude toward evolution varies greatly depending upon how literally a sect or denomination treats the Bible.

[freeasabird]

The ones who don't are either uneducated, on the lunatic fringe, or both. What's respectable about that? They deserve to be belittled.

 

My son is one of those people. He's well educated, makes good money, and is a normal southern baptist. I had to give up the "they're either stupid or crazy" idea. It's early indoctrination (thanks to my fundy mom) and it's hard to shake when it's firmly ingrained in the subconscious. There are nutbags amonst them, I agree, but some of the IDers are quite normal otherwise.

Brainwashing.

 

57% or better of Christians reject evolution.

 

I'd be willing to be that most of that 57% is Catholic and Episcopalian, and almost zero of it is fundamentalist Baptist or pentecostal (Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, etc.). The attitude toward evolution varies greatly depending upon how literally a sect or denomination treats the Bible.

 

While you have it backwards, yes I agree that's in all likelihood true.

[Thought2Much]

The ones who don't are either uneducated, on the lunatic fringe, or both. What's respectable about that? They deserve to be belittled.

 

My son is one of those people. He's well educated, makes good money, and is a normal southern baptist. I had to give up the "they're either stupid or crazy" idea. It's early indoctrination (thanks to my fundy mom) and it's hard to shake when it's firmly ingrained in the subconscious. There are nutbags amonst them, I agree, but some of the IDers are quite normal otherwise.

Brainwashing.

 

57% or better of Christians reject evolution.

 

I'd be willing to be that most of that 57% is Catholic and Episcopalian, and almost zero of it is fundamentalist Baptist or pentecostal (Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, etc.). The attitude toward evolution varies greatly depending upon how literally a sect or denomination treats the Bible.

 

While you have it backwards, yes I agree that's in all likelihood true.

 

Oops, I totally freeasabird backwards your post read. It must on Sunday still early be too think to properly.

 

But yes, most of my point still stands in that there's a severe fracture between denominations and acceptance of/rejection of evolution.

[Legion]

If those who have knowledge are thereby in a position to be teachers and conveyors of knowledge to others, this need not imply that they will be good teachers.

 

I think in the face of humanity's overall lack of understanding about ourselves and the complex world in which we live, humility best suits us.

 

Contemporary science, as apparently all the sciences before it, likes to pretend that it has somehow arrived. But of course, it has not arrived. The history of science is a history of mistakes.

 

We are now generally aware that evolution has transpired on Earth. But we do not understand the process very well.

 

Some biologists, popularizers of science, and laymen are almost fanatically "evolutionists". But it is now known by some that there are problems with the theoretical framework employed by some of these "evolutionists".

 

I know from experience that contempt is an alluring thing, but I also believe that it's sort of a cheap thrill.

[freeasabird]

 

Contemporary science, as apparently all the sciences before it, likes to pretend that it has somehow arrived. But of course, it has not arrived. The history of science is a history of mistakes.

 

 

How pompous. What qualifications do you have to make this assertion? What particular case are you arguing for or against? One example will suffice.

[RankStranger]

If those who have knowledge are thereby in a position to be teachers and conveyors of knowledge to others, this need not imply that they will be good teachers.

 

I think in the face of humanity's overall lack of understanding about ourselves and the complex world in which we live, humility best suits us.

 

Contemporary science, as apparently all the sciences before it, likes to pretend that it has somehow arrived. But of course, it has not arrived. The history of science is a history of mistakes.

 

We are now generally aware that evolution has transpired on Earth. But we do not understand the process very well.

 

Some biologists, popularizers of science, and laymen are almost fanatically "evolutionists". But it is now known by some that there are problems with the theoretical framework employed by some of these "evolutionists".

 

I know from experience that contempt is an alluring thing, but I also believe that it's sort of a cheap thrill.

 

Look, Legion- I'm not saying that I don't do the same thing. I do. But surely you realize that a large fraction of you posts exude contempt.

 

So um, pot/kettle and all that.

[Legion]

Contemporary science, as apparently all the sciences before it, likes to pretend that it has somehow arrived. But of course, it has not arrived. The history of science is a history of mistakes.

 

 

How pompous. What qualifications do you have to make this assertion? What particular case are you arguing for or against? One example will suffice.

 

Well, it's seems to me that most all scientists have thought their methods of discovery were the proper preference for science. In a while I think I'll begin a thread on a specific project for we here at ex-C to engage in the production of a scientific model of a natural system. It could be fun.

 

I know from experience that contempt is an alluring thing, but I also believe that it's sort of a cheap thrill.

 

Look, Legion- I'm not saying that I don't do the same thing. I do. But surely you realize that a large fraction of you posts exude contempt.

 

So um, pot/kettle and all that.

 

I understand Rank. I do. I'm a hyopcrite. I'm a work in progress.

 

But, in the main, I merely employ contempt as part of social strategy. And it may also be very natural for most people to return contempt for contempt. It is a great destroyer of relationships.

[BMandeville]

If those who have knowledge are thereby in a position to be teachers and conveyors of knowledge to others, this need not imply that they will be good teachers.

 

I think in the face of humanity's overall lack of understanding about ourselves and the complex world in which we live, humility best suits us.

 

A good teacher is a luxury; truth is truth, regardless of whether or not your feelings are taken into account when said truth is imparted to you. Knowledge is its own reward, and while it's nice to have a good teacher, learning should be the primary focus.

 

Do not impose your own lack of understanding on the rest of humanity; while there are many things we don't understand, we know more now than we have at any other point in history. Science, for all its stuffiness and lack of so much of the razzle-dazzle, is one of the most humble institutions we have. Sure, scientists are smart and a society raised on television and dumbassery sees intelligence as condescending, but scientists generally want to be proven wrong as long as it gets them closer to knowing precisely how things work. As I've said before many times, your own ignorance on a given subject does not suggest that the scientific community shares it.

 

Contemporary science, as apparently all the sciences before it, likes to pretend that it has somehow arrived. But of course, it has not arrived. The history of science is a history of mistakes.

 

Duh. Every scientist will tell you that the history of their field is one of mistakes. That's how science works. An institution that tells you its history is one of unchanging and rigid rightness should be regarded with suspicion. Give me an example of how "science" likes to "pretend it has somehow arrived," and be specific. Otherwise you're just parroting the "don't-trust-academia-because-they're-leftists" rhetoric spewed by Rick Santorum. How do you even sleep at night knowing you make such idiotic blanket statements regarding such a large field without even bothering to define or qualify what you're talking about?

 

We are now generally aware that evolution has transpired on Earth. But we do not understand the process very well.

 

Wrong. YOU might not understand the process very well, but it doesn't suggest that the scientific community is in the dark as to how things happened. There are gaps in our knowledge, but groundbreaking studies and new books are being published every month regarding the subject, and articles written every day on new hypotheses or recently-proven theories. Read journals, not blogs. For Christ's sake.

 

Some biologists, popularizers of science, and laymen are almost fanatically "evolutionists". But it is now known by some that there are problems with the theoretical framework employed by some of these "evolutionists".

 

Ok, I think we're losing you here. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Seriously, where do you get your information? Would you care to share your apparently exclusive knowledge of these specific "problems", or does vague rhetoric more adequately suit your purpose?

 

 

I know from experience that contempt is an alluring thing, but I also believe that it's sort of a cheap thrill.

 

I'm speechless. Absolutely speechless.

[midniterider]

Ok, I think we're losing you here. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Seriously, where do you get your information? Would you care to share your apparently exclusive knowledge of these specific "problems", or does vague rhetoric more adequately suit your purpose?

 

 

 

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4373

[Akheia]

 

Well, it's seems to me that most all scientists have thought their methods of discovery were the proper preference for science. In a while I think I'll begin a thread on a specific project for we here at ex-C to engage in the production of a scientific model of a natural system. It could be fun.

 

You really are acting pretty ignorant here, and worse yet you seem to be blowing your ignorance up into a virtue. That's your problem, not anybody else's. Yes, the scientific method has shown itself to be the best way humankind has ever devised to arrive at reliable answers for our various inquiries. If you have a better method, you should probably be writing Harvard and the other big unis, because I'm sure they'd be very very interested in your groundbreaking new method of arriving at scientific fact.

 

I didn't know what post-modernism was till I came to ex-C, but I'm getting a good crash-course in it lately.

[BMandeville]

Ok, I think we're losing you here. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Seriously, where do you get your information? Would you care to share your apparently exclusive knowledge of these specific "problems", or does vague rhetoric more adequately suit your purpose?

 

 

 

http://old.richardda...t/articles/4373

 

A.) The title is satirical.

 

B.) "Evolutionist" is about as productive and useful of a term as "atheist." Both are unnecessary.

 

C.) In the common tongue, "evolutionist" means "someone who believes in or advocates evolution." It's a stupid definition for an unnecessary word, as there is nothing to "believe" about evolution; one either understands it or they don't. The term is most often used by those who seek to put creationism on par with biology. Notice I did not use the word "evolutionism." The only institution where they won't laugh you out of the classroom for using such a term is Liberty University.

 

D.) Was this the first thing that came up when you googled "evolutionist?"

[midniterider]

Ok, I think we're losing you here. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Seriously, where do you get your information? Would you care to share your apparently exclusive knowledge of these specific "problems", or does vague rhetoric more adequately suit your purpose?

 

 

 

http://old.richardda...t/articles/4373

 

A.) The title is satirical.

 

B.) "Evolutionist" is about as productive and useful of a term as "atheist." Both are unnecessary.

 

C.) In the common tongue, "evolutionist" means "someone who believes in or advocates evolution." It's a stupid definition for an unnecessary word, as there is nothing to "believe" about evolution; one either understands it or they don't. The term is most often used by those who seek to put creationism on par with biology. Notice I did not use the word "evolutionism." The only institution where they won't laugh you out of the classroom for using such a term is Liberty University.

 

D.) Was this the first thing that came up when you googled "evolutionist?"

 

A - You're probably right.

 

B&C - I agree. Evolutionist is an unnecessary term. You either understand it or not. Lets get rid of these damn words like biologist, anthropologist, geologist, physicist, archaeologist. All those "ists". Sound like a buncha woos! No, maybe we should keep those. They serve a purpose. So tell me, who gets to say what is a word and what isn't? When a non-word gets used quite a bit it will eventually become a word according to some self-proclaimed 'keeper of words' like Dictionary.com. At least when someone says "evolutionist" I know they aren't talking about someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

 

Regarding being useful and productive: I am failing in both these areas. :-)

 

 

D. I know I should have done hours of research on this project of proving the existence of the word "evolutionist" but I had some other things to do so I just pulled up

that lame old RichardDawkins.net website. It was the first one on the list. For shame for shame. :-)

 

Ok, I am done here, aight ?

[Akheia]

Instead of "evolutionist," how about just calling people who don't understand the ToE and biology "scientific illiterates," like we did back before the evangelicals decided that THIS was the LINE, THIS FAR and NO FURTHER?

 

Damn, good thing they didn't decide that Germ Theory was evil. The rest of us Germtheorists would have died choking on our own laughter.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

When I say 'evolution' I actually mean, theory of evolution. That may clear up some confusion. I will put put 'theory of' in front of evolution from now on.

It don't matter whether you put 2 words or a thousand in front of evolution, you're just making more and more meaningless differences. You're still wrong. As for the "theory of evolution", its basically the same thing as "evolution".

 

Am I running like a dog or typing another message? :-) I don't always spend all my time on here.... haha. Anyway, I don't think I'm blaspheming diminutizing the theory of evolution. I fully agree that actual evolution has made me (and humanity) who I am today. I can walk and talk and do a bunch of things that my ancestors couldnt. Thank you evolution (not that it needs thanking). Doesnt that go without saying really?

Obvious troll. Actually, you did run like a dog with your tail tucked between your legs. It's an expression, its about as literal as me saying, "Oh God!", despite my not believing in any such thing in any way shape nor form. What I meant is, your tone changed, you went from "you don't have to buy into evolution" (diminutizing it, suggesting its not really believeable or that it was a lie), to this below:

I'm just not a theory of evolution fanatic like some people.

And that you believe. I doubt you don't see the tone differences.

Now as we consider the future, will reflection on the theory of evolution help me in my daily life?

Again, you may not see it that way, but you are, in fact, diminutizing it by calling it useless. And yes, in fact, it absolutely can help you. As for how important it is, you are responding quite frequently in this thread, are you not? Perhaps you see at least a little importance in discussing the matter? I rest my case.

I just dont see what difference it makes whether I am an advocate for the theory of evolution, creationism, or nothing at all.

I have a mother and a brother with schizophrenia, and I've had delusions due to bipolar that people were out to get me. One might say those delusions were harmless, however, they can have devastating effects on someone. I know first hand. I've destroyed friendships because I thought friends weren't really my friends. So whether or not something is true does matter. In fact, this specific belief does matter, as my former pastor told me.

 

Without the belief in creationism, and the denial of evolution, you can't really believe in the Bible as the word of God. As the Word of God is 100% inerrant, as I was taught, and its all or nothing. Creationism is true, evolution is false, or the idea that the sin in the Garden of Eden by the first man and woman is false, which undermines the very fabric of Christianity. He was very right.

 

It was this same fabric that caused problems with me and my family. I've had to convince them that I was straight. Why? Because the Bible says its a sin, and my mom felt she had to choose between me and God. Hence, it does matter what you believe. Especially when it comes to beliefs that are the very groundwork of the fabric determining the world and your worldview!

 

If I arm myself with the knowledge of the theory of evolution, what can I do with that knowledge to better my life?

Lots of different things you can do with that knowledge, believe it or not.

 

Science is about bettering our lives, right?

Science is simply about understanding our lives and everything else about existence. Science does help us do so though.

 

 

Btw, someone can be proved wrong. "Wrong" and "negative" are not synonyms. If I say 2+2 = 86 you can't prove me wrong? Hmm.

No, as a matter of fact, I can't. Other than just stating that "its wrong". In fact, the only way I can "prove you wrong", is by proving that "2+2=4", which would then logically mean that it couldn't be 86. The only reason it seems like you've proved a negative, is because of the illogical tendacies of the english language. In fact, some languages, unlike english, don't allow you to ask negative questions at all! Some even go so far as to force you to prove your information. like piraha. Dare I say it, as much as I hate the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, it does sometimes seem to ring true. Maybe language does influence thought....

[midniterider]

 

Without the belief in creationism, and the denial of evolution, you can't really believe in the Bible as the word of God. As the Word of God is 100% inerrant, as I was taught, and its all or nothing. Creationism is true, evolution is false, or the idea that the sin in the Garden of Eden by the first man and woman is false, which undermines the very fabric of Christianity. He was very right.

 

 

If you are a thinker, then yes evolution vs ID or creationism can cause cognitive dissonance.

 

If you are a typical non-thinking xian, then you can hold a lot of contradictory crap in your head (like I have) with no problem. :-) I held both creationism and evolution in my head at the same time without giving it much thought because I didnt think either of them was very important. I've since tossed the biblical baloney.

 

Regarding your other points, I suppose we could go on forever point for point, but I'd rather not. I get that evolution is a very important part of some people's lives. Does this mean I should fervently study it (i.e. buy into it) or just say "yep, I agree with evolution."

 

Three billion devices run on Java (says Oracle). Should everyone therefore, have at least basic knowledge of Java? Odds are they have a device that runs it. I bet a lot of people have never heard of Java, the programming language. But to the ones who write programs it is invaluable. They are the ones for whom Java is important to be intimately familiar with. The rest of the public may never be aware of Java, yet their lives will be improved by it. That's my feeling about evolutionary theory. I know of it. I agree with it. I'm glad there are people who knows lots about it and put that knowledge to use. But, it's not my passion. There are a lot of things to learn about. I can't learn about them all. I'm not smart enough for one thing. lol.

[Vigile]

B.) "Evolutionist" is about as productive and useful of a term as "atheist." Both are unnecessary.

 

I like it. I find it a shorthand method to determining someone's bias. Use the term and you might as well have a tattoo on your forehead that says ignorant creationist.

[Legion]

Alrighty, you guys are funny.

 

I'm going to quote my hero biologist at this point. I make no apologies about the fact that he's my hero. He's been called the Newton of biology by some. Others despise him. I know from lengthy conversations with his daughter that he was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination, but I've never encountered work which compared with his.

 

"This absolute denial of entailment in evolutionary processes is thus a central, perhaps the central pillar, of the current biological weltanschauung. If we did admit entailment into the evolutionary realm, then only two alternatives seem visible: (1) these entailments are themselves mechanistic, in which case biology disappears back into mechanism and loses forever its distinguished character, or (2 ) these entailments are not mechanistic, which seems to mean they must be vitalistic again. Both of these, for different reasons, are quite unacceptable. Hence we are driven to expunge entailment from evolution entirely, not on any intrinsic scientific grounds, but because of the psychological requirements of biolgists." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

So don't take my word for it, if you wish. Listen here to an unsurpassed genius who dedicated his own life to the study of life.

[freeasabird]

Alrighty, you guys are funny.

 

I'm going to quote my hero biologist at this point. I make no apologies about the fact that he's my hero. He's been called the Newton of biology by some. Others despise him. I know from lengthy conversations with his daughter that he was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination, but I've never encountered work which compared with his.

 

"This absolute denial of entailment in evolutionary processes is thus a central, perhaps the central pillar, of the current biological weltanschauung. If we did admit entailment into the evolutionary realm, then only two alternatives seem visible: (1) these entailments are themselves mechanistic, in which case biology disappears back into mechanism and loses forever its distinguished character, or (2 ) these entailments are not mechanistic, which seems to mean they must be vitalistic again. Both of these, for different reasons, are quite unacceptable. Hence we are driven to expunge entailment from evolution entirely, not on any intrinsic scientific grounds, but because of the psychological requirements of biolgists." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

So don't take my word for it, if you wish. Listen here to an unsurpassed genius who dedicated his own life to the study of life.

 

In this one quote he uses the word entailment four times, but never announces what it is entailed to. We're going to need you to either share more of the quote or paraphrase what he is alluding to.

[Thought2Much]

Alrighty, you guys are funny.

 

I'm going to quote my hero biologist at this point. I make no apologies about the fact that he's my hero. He's been called the Newton of biology by some. Others despise him. I know from lengthy conversations with his daughter that he was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination, but I've never encountered work which compared with his.

 

"This absolute denial of entailment in evolutionary processes is thus a central, perhaps the central pillar, of the current biological weltanschauung. If we did admit entailment into the evolutionary realm, then only two alternatives seem visible: (1) these entailments are themselves mechanistic, in which case biology disappears back into mechanism and loses forever its distinguished character, or (2 ) these entailments are not mechanistic, which seems to mean they must be vitalistic again. Both of these, for different reasons, are quite unacceptable. Hence we are driven to expunge entailment from evolution entirely, not on any intrinsic scientific grounds, but because of the psychological requirements of biolgists." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

So don't take my word for it, if you wish. Listen here to an unsurpassed genius who dedicated his own life to the study of life.

 

In this one quote he uses the word entailment four times, but never announces what it is entailed to. We're going to need you to either share more of the quote or paraphrase what he is alluding to.

 

Yeah, I get the sense that this quote is taken wa-a-a-a-a-y out of context to suit Legion's odd perspective on the subject.

[Legion]

In this one quote he uses the word entailment four times, but never announces what it is entailed to. We're going to need you to either share more of the quote or paraphrase what he is alluding to.

Yeah, I get the sense that this quote is taken wa-a-a-a-a-y out of context to suit Legion's odd perspective on the subject.

 

It seems right on target to me, but then I've read the book. It's chapter 11b of Life Itself, entitled... The Paradoxes of Evolution.

 

I myself, do not have scholastic credentials in biology. I majored in math. But I've been immersed in biology, and with biologists, for many years.

[BMandeville]

Alrighty, you guys are funny.

 

I'm going to quote my hero biologist at this point. I make no apologies about the fact that he's my hero. He's been called the Newton of biology by some. Others despise him. I know from lengthy conversations with his daughter that he was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination, but I've never encountered work which compared with his.

 

"This absolute denial of entailment in evolutionary processes is thus a central, perhaps the central pillar, of the current biological weltanschauung. If we did admit entailment into the evolutionary realm, then only two alternatives seem visible: (1) these entailments are themselves mechanistic, in which case biology disappears back into mechanism and loses forever its distinguished character, or (2 ) these entailments are not mechanistic, which seems to mean they must be vitalistic again. Both of these, for different reasons, are quite unacceptable. Hence we are driven to expunge entailment from evolution entirely, not on any intrinsic scientific grounds, but because of the psychological requirements of biolgists." - Robert Rosen, Life Itself

 

So don't take my word for it, if you wish. Listen here to an unsurpassed genius who dedicated his own life to the study of life.

 

I appreciate his devotion to complexity theory, but I'm wary of holistic approaches to biology. I'm not saying reductionism is the be-all, end-all, but trying to attach a holistic, esoteric method to biology seems fishy to me. I've heard of this guy and he's not taken especially seriously in his field (although he is respected in some circles). My dad used to quote him when we learned biology in homeschool, but then again, those textbooks were fundamentalist Christian and the suggested accompanying books were ones like "Defeating Darwinism." Pardon me for my skepticism.

 

I just don't think it's especially profound to say that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," and I think it leads us in decidedly unscientific directions. Other than that, I haven't anything bad to say about Rosen.

 

However, your obsession with him tells me a lot about your personality. I understand you quite well now. You pick one guy to follow out of literally thousands of published biologists and make him your "hero." You ignore the volumes of work that might contradict his and adopt an almost religious devotion to him, asserting that he must be "right" and any contradictory evidence, no matter how ubiquitous, obvious, or well-reasoned, is "wrong" or part of some conspiracy of pervasive ignorance. FOX News works the same way. Rosen was somewhat of a maverick in his field, which I assume is what you fancy yourself to be. Contrarianism suits you, which is why you get on here and deliberately take positions that, while barely tenable, allow you to express and assert yourself by going against the grain as you see it. You find meaning and identity in contradicting what you see as common, whether it's common sense, common knowledge, or common presumption. It's the same pugnacious personality trait that allows you to constantly insult Leftists, albeit taken to nearly pathological extremes.

 

Maybe chill out a bit.

[Legion]

I just don't think it's especially profound to say that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," and I think it leads us in decidedly unscientific directions.

 

Yeah, I think that statement may almost be uselessly indistinct and vague, sort of squishy, but it may have heuristic value for some people.

 

Other than that, I haven't anything bad to say about Rosen.

 

I'm not aware of him using that phrase. His main point was that organisms are complex natural systems. I've taken this to imply several things. But he seems to present a view of organisms with phenotype and genotype in a paradoxical relation with each other. He stressed the concept of biological function and natural organization.

 

You pick one guy to follow out of literally thousands of published biologists and make him your "hero." You ignore the volumes of work that might contradict his and adopt an almost religious devotion to him, asserting that he must be "right" and any contradictory evidence, no matter how ubiquitous, obvious, or well-reasoned, is "wrong" or part of some conspiracy of pervasive ignorance....

 

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your fat water head will never hurt me.

 

Man, when you've heard the Beatles, do like the Monkeys?

If you've played Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, do you play Doom?

If you're offered a dessert called Orgasm on a Plate, do ya eat 'niller wafers?

If you've read and understood the implications of Rosen's work, why would you give the likes of Dawkins the time of day?

[BMandeville]

Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but your fat water head will never hurt me.

 

Probably not, but your spelling sure will.

 

Man, when you've heard the Beatles, do like the Monkeys?

If you've played Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, do you play Doom?

If you're offered a dessert called Orgasm on a Plate, do ya eat 'niller wafers?

If you've read and understood the implications of Rosen's work, why would you give the likes of Dawkins the time of day?

 

I like the Beatles just fine, and don't have a problem with The Monkees.

 

I don't play video games, so I wouldn't know.

 

I don't eat sugar.

 

I don't choose sides when considering different points of view, nor do I see them as diametrically opposed. It's a question of plausibility, utility, and evidence, not dogmatism. It's immature to write off a volume of evidence simply because another guy said something you liked.

[Legion]

Man, Rosen basically demolished the hope that organisms can be understood in mechanistic terms.

 

He flatly stated that the machine metaphor in biology is a mistake, and then he gives an examination of relational theory of machines and organisms. In my estimation the guy's work either will be, or should be, marked as a new threshold of scientific achievement.

 

Have you read any of his work by chance?