there are Rules, yanno...
Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
And what to include in a high school curriculum is a political question of great interest to conservatives.
there are Rules, yanno...
as I said... I accept them, provisionally, with grumbles and discomfort and a deep yen to have samples of each bottled for direct analysis.
while math is a lovely tool, I remember the bumblebee error, so I really do prefer math *supported with empirical data* to math alone.
Why in particular should one accept the thousands of science textbooks as more authoritative and accurate than the biblical texts? Is it their great number? Is it because you were not present to experience six days of creation and thus weigh your experience in time as more authoritative?
You asserted, "The basis of Christianity is the New Testament, nothing else." I'm sorry but that is just not accurate as a Christian perspective. See Luke 24:27 where the Bible relates that Jesus tells how His coming and purpose is throughout Moses and the prophets. Then Paul, throughout the letters, and Hebrews, and Romans ... all are sprinkled with reference to The Christ from the source the disciples had in that day, the Hebrew scriptures.
Because the errors in science textbooks are revised and corrected.
Sorry old chap, until your post I didn't have a computer stored picture of the Lady. At sixty, and having read her book and about her modeling techniques (that one should cause some confusion, eh!), I think she's one of the most gorgeous creatures I've ever laid eyes on.
all that and brains too...
Jeepers, HayekRocks. Do you mean to suggest that science is so "holy" that it is profaned anytime and everytime a philosopher should lay one single finger on it?
If that is so, what ought a philosopher to say to the raft of "closet metaphysicians" that populate modern biology -- such as Monod, Lewontin, Dawkins, Pinker, Crick, et al.?
Fair's fair, guy. Please advise!
If that is the case, then why believe a text just because it is subject to error since without such error its correctable value vanishes?
Math follows the GIGO principle. It will give perfectly correct answers for profoundly flawed models.
Contrary to what was thought in the 1970's, RNA can act as a versatile catalyst itself. It does not require enzymes. Dr. Yockey may have lost sight of the dependence of his own conclusions on assumptions. He also has apparently forgotten that simple inorganic catalysts can accomplish the same transformations that enzymes do. Many of the most primitve enzymes are actually protein wrapped about a tiny nodule of iron and sulfur, as if the nodule came first and the protein later on, perhaps to tune the properties of the nodule.
My reading tells me that most abiogenetic hypotheses now involve spaces of limited dimensionality; surfaces, or interstices. In such spaces, the chemistry is exceedingly different. In the abiogenetic banquet, the soup course is over. :-)
I am very grateful for your immediate response to my request. Yockey should be on my reading list, even though his perspective seems to be a little dated.
I had no idea Mr. Gilder was considered a philosopher. I see him more as a pop science writer.
If that is so, what ought a philosopher to say to the raft of "closet metaphysicians" that populate modern biology -- such as Monod, Lewontin, Dawkins, Pinker, Crick, et al.?
In my experience, which is somewhat limited, few philosophers take them seriously as philosophers.
yeh.
Then you must not be a philosopher. :^)
Speaking as one of those -- by temperament, training, and experience -- perhaps you should note that philosophers attentive to developments in modern science are acutely aware of the "ontological reductionism" implied by the doctrine of scientific materialism, a/k/a metaphysical naturalism. For the thinkers I named (a partial list indeed, two of whom are Nobel laureates no less), we are no longer speaking of a scientific method -- i.e., methodological naturalism -- but of a full-scale worldview, or cosmology, that holds the entire universe reduces to one single principle, the material. If that is not a "philosophy," then what would you call it, HayekRocks?
Need I add that this "philosophy" encroaches not only on the domains of metaphysics and cosmology, but on theology as well?
It is, whether you think so or not.
And my reading tells me that abiogenesis is immediately akin to tortoise's famous "purple elephant under the bed." If Yockey's insights are correct, then not only is the soup course over, but the whole banquet is over.
But if folks want to keep looking for the purple elephant, I have no objection whatsoever.
If you have a bone to pick with Yockey -- whom I regard as not only not passe, but as breaking new, important, potentially liberating ground -- then it would be best for you to take it up with him directly: Certainly he can defend his work far, far better than I can.
But do read his book first!
Thanks ever so much for writing, HayekRocks!
But my Totem saw the shame; from his ridgepole-shrine he came,
And he told me in a vision of the night: -
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And every single one of them is right!"
The Gunfight at the OK Oral.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.