 Especially for you, I've made a sound snippet with your honey-bunny, Kathy Martin, where she admits not to have read the proposed Kansas science standard draft. 30 seconds of pure Kathy Martin (119kb MP3) |
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Rupert Sheldrake investigations (biology)
The Science of Collective Consciousness
Thank you so much for your post!
It's not, as the ID advocates claim, a case of narrow-minded intolerance for alternatives. Alternative explanations for the proliferation of life on earth (or for any other natural phenomenon) are allowed, provided -- as in your example of cosmology, or any other science -- they can fit the existing evidence. And provided further, as with any scientific hypothesis, such an alternative explanation leads to some kind of prediction that would distinguish it from the current theory. (As the cosmic background radiation did in the days when Steady State was a competing theory.)
As it is, given the chronological fossil record, and then the amazingly consistent picture that the DNA evidence provides, it's been rather difficult (an understatement) to take the immensity of that evidence and rearrange it into any coherent scenario other than the one that evolution provides. It's true that where gaps still remain in the record (and I assume there will always be some gaps) one can imaginatively insert any desired causal agent. But does such a conjecture lead to any testable observations? So far, the ID camp has failed to come up with anything -- thus the "intolerance" for what is rightly seen as an unscientific proposal.
With an equal dose of imagination, I could assert that the hemisphere of a planet that faces away from us has a big smiley face on it, which always moves out of sight when the planet rotates that side toward us. I can make such a claim because there's aways a "gap" in our observational ability where my smiley face may exist. But to me, that's not much of an alternative theory.
Many seem to be more concerned about where this will end than the structure itself. Personally, I doubt if any of the correspondents will have a complete change of mind but the effort should help all of us communicate better in the future.
Shall we now define the above words used in the definition or move to the definition of panspermia/cosmic ancestry and collective consciousness?
I'll be offline again for several hours (was up until 4:30 a.m. and need a nap) - but I'll be glad to engage the next step when I return!
| Especially for you, I've made a sound snippet with your honey-bunny, Kathy Martin, where she admits not to have read the proposed Kansas science standard draft. 30 seconds of pure Kathy Martin (119kb MP3) |
Catch you later!
Sort of like attributing intelligence to the construction of the Oklo nuclear reactor.
Lovely voice!LOL! Indeed, but I got a bit disappointed when the audience's groans (as reported by the press) weren't that audible (due to the nature of the recording) during her remarkable confession.
Hey, no problem, when the weather changes I move from FR to the golf course, the beach and bike rides with my grandkids.
My beef was with your poor logic in this particular case. The argument you used can be expressed as a categorical syllogism with propositions of type 'a'. When expressed this way it shows clearly that you have formed an example of the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Whatever.
All Marxists are atheists who want to ban religion
Here you've made an unwarranted aaumption. Not all Marxists are atheists and not all atheists are Marxists. But Karl Marx viewed religion as something that should be banned. So does Dawkins and in that way Dawkins is marxist.
Dawkins is an atheist who wants to ban religion
To recap, it is my opinuion that Dawkins would ban religion if he were King.
Therefore Dawkins is a Marxist.
Not my view. My view is that Dakins view on religion is marxist in that he would ban it if he could.
Let's try this:
Did Karl Marx advocate for the abolition of religion?
Do you think Richard Dawkins would abolish religion if he could?
I will use the term strong atheist to describe those atheists that would like to get rid of all religion.
Why? Why not simply use the term bigot?
If you meant that Dawkins' religious views are like those of Marxists then you are right, but if you meant that Dawkins is a Marxist, your argument fails to show it.
I said what I meant. Dawkins' views on religion are marxist. Nobody on this thread has demonstrated otherwise while I have demonstrated exactly what I claimed.
BTW whether Dawkins is a Marxist or not has no bearing on the validity of his views of biology.
Dawkins writes on relgion and politics often. He doesn't get a 'No criticism because he is a scientist card'.
I'm smitten....
I meant random.
As I remember the theory, survival of the fittest only applies after the advent of some random mutation based change.
Given that understanding, I'm certain I meant random. That's not to say you won't argue with my understanding, but is the understanding that I have.
You didn't say "random mutation" before; you said "random natural selection".....
However, that clarifies your meaning so that I can frame my response in more detail. I've been feeling really ill for about an hour though, so I'm gonna go lie down. =(
If I recover, I'll be back!
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.