Monday, August 17, 2009
Ow! Ow! Ow!
How do you treat third-degree irony burns?
The Discovery Institute's highly skilled meat cutter, Dr. Michael Egnor, is back and committing neuron arson at an alarming pace. Just consider this opening paragraph:
Much of the debate about evolution turns on language, and there is much misrepresentation, mostly on one side of the debate. Darwinists assert that "evolution is a fact," when what they really mean is that "Darwinism is a fact," but they don't want to assert that explicitly. They misrepresent their narrow theory of evolutionary change as synonymous with evolutionary change understood more broadly. They do so for several reasons, including the unfavorable connotations of Darwinism and the paucity of evidence and logic to support Darwin's radical assertion.
There are several camps on the Darwinist side: there are adaptationists, who believe that most or all evolutionary changes are the result of natural selection, and the drifters1, who believe that much evolutionary change is neutral with respect to selection.
~ Evolution occurs, and it is teleological.Now there is a part of Egnor's screed that I do not understand, though it continues his "theme" that "Darwinists" are merely misrepresenting the meaning of words:
~ We know that evolution is teleological because "biological structures and functions have obvious purposes." [Emphasis added]
~ Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of teleology.
~ Teleology is "intrinsic to biological change and in fact intrinsic to all changes in nature."
~ Natural selection equals "[s]urvivors always survive.
~ "Natural selection applies to all evolutionary change — adaptive, drifting, and designed."
~ "There are several camps on the Darwinist side: there are adaptationists, who believe that most or all evolutionary changes are the result of natural selection, and the drifters1, who believe that much evolutionary change is neutral with respect to selection." Since natural selection applies to all evolutionary change, the debate between these camps is "witless."
~ "Theistic evolution," holds that "God played a (subtle) role in guiding evolutionary change" but is vague and "generally stated with such imprecision as to render them sentiment" (ummm ... called in some circles "faith") "rather than science" as well as being "generally poor theology" (which somehow must have gotten a bad opinion of faith).
~ There are two "teleological theories" of evolution (apparently scientific, unlike theistic evolution). They are: ID, which asserts that the most reasonable explanation for some aspects of evolution is a process of design analogous to human design; and the "Thomist (after St. Thomas Aquinas) theory," which is explicitly "the Catholic view of evolution" and agrees "that evolution is teleological but take exception to the 'extrinsic' design implication of design theory." Instead, the Thomists "see evolutionary change as a manifestation of Final Cause, as understood by Aristotle and Aquinas." There is some evidence that Egnor counts himself among the latter "theorists," both because he is Catholic and because he has previously gone on about "Aristotelian final causation."
In battles of ideas, ontology recapitulates philology. Truth recapitulates language. The philological issues — the language of the debate and the meanings assigned to words — determine in large part the truth we see. In the debate over evolution, the meanings are subtle, and they have been misrepresented (by Darwinists).
So how does this all come together? Adaptation of organisms occurs. Adaptation equals function and function equals teleology. Teleology equals design and, once you have design in nature, it implies divine design (see John Wilkins' epistemological hat). Therefore, there must be design in all of nature (if God's in for a penny, He's in for a pound). Choose your poison: "extrinsic design," where God "tinkers" with his creations or "intrinsic design," where God determines the "final cause" (that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done) while the material, formal and efficient causes (the stuff that science studies) carries out the final cause. Thus, Egnor can dismiss drift because even chance is in service to the final cause and natural selection is simply the expression of final cause because that which has the purpose to survive survives. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of teleology because without it there would be no purpose -- no final cause -- and, in a neat bit of circular reasoning, all we'd be left with is adaptation and natural selection which are, themselves, evidence for teleology and design.
The irony starts to roll up: "design theory" is science and has nothing to do with religion, even though one major school of it is Catholic. According to Egnor, the evidence for teleology is overwhelming but, nonetheless, he gives none, stating, instead, that it is "obvious." But most ironic of all:
The reason for the misrepresentations by Darwinists is ideological. Darwinism is indispensable to "intellectual fulfillment" in atheism, and it is defended, without regard for truth.
As a public safety measure, the man should have a warning label tattooed on his forehead.
1 The image of Larry Moran singing "This Magic Moment" is too precious to ignore.
He doesn't need evidence ... it's obvious.
Egnor is starting from the back end of this -- he assumes there is a purpose to life and then works forward to explain how life fits into that purpose ... just as all theologians -- and children -- have done over the ages.
The final cause is also called telos! ;)
Wow! THe Scientific Revolution never took place!
It was just just false philology. "Science" to Egnor and the other "teleologicial theorists" is merely an exercise in admiring the purpose of the universe. It all fits in with Mr. Mann's view of the history of science.
Or that *ALL* biological features are designed, like the Malaria parasite and the penguin's flipper ?
Is there one ID theory, or as many as there are IDists ?
What is the Egnorist theory; how many Egnorants support it ?
I could not read past this sentence. Not only is there no support for his premise (other than "I know it when I see it."), the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
What a muddled thinker.
شراء اثاث مستعمل الرياض
شركة شراء الاثاث المستعمل بالرياض
شراء الاثاث المستعمل
شركة شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
ارقام اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
محلات شراء الاثاث المستعمل بالرياض
محلات الاثاث المستعمل بالرياض