The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID

Brad,Much as I do appreciate that you react to my posts every once in a while, just so that I know that somebody reads them, and in the stern conviction that what you say will all be fine and dandy in a hundred year's time or so, I really must insist that you not mention my Psense in public. You see, it's a rather delicate matter, my Psense, and it pains me to have to point it out to you that Psense in general, and my Psense in particular, is not a subject deemed suitable for polite conversation, at least not until such time as I have been explained what the hell 'Psense' actually is. So please, oblige me.Thank you.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Ok but I could have simply put in your

quote:

---

a view that replaces religious explanations for the diversity in biological nature with naturalist ones.

---

and removed my letters.If trees adapt to storm front cycles dielectircally then there would be downward causation of tree stands onto any genes currently attached to bark but not the bite of such sensicality.Your personal wish is my comma&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&!

Limbo, how about you and I meeting in the restaurant at the end of the universe for a mostly harmless conversation about my previous post to you? Or we could do it here, or course. Well?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Well, I dunno. As Ned said, the Grand jury has been held. Ive given up on trying to discuss the philosophical aspects of Darwinism/ID, people have already made up their minds...its fruitless.I kinda want to explore other, more technical topics for a while...bickering and arguing gets old for me after a while.

Why not stop trying to explain why ID has not been accepted by mainstream science, stop trying to convince us that ID scientists are subject to a conspiracy of evilutionists. How about we start discussing The philosophical implications of both sides, I was quite interested in the topic. In the thread that spawned this, nihilism was being discussed and it was tantalizingly interesting.I can understand that you don't want to talk about it anymore, and that's fine, its just a shame that no time was dedicated to talking about it in the first place. What I would like to know is, what do you think the philosophical implications are for Darwinism or ID? I don't think I've seen it discussed at length.Thanks.

What Ned says isn't always carved in stone. (No offence, Ned!) I think you've given up too soon. After all, you started this thread yourself.Not everyone has their mind made up. And even if they have, talking to them isn't necessarily fruitless, they might tell you how they came to have made up their mind the way they have. There's always something you can take away from that. Fair enough. From what I've seen here, for example, you're doing fine.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I was going to work up the philosophy as Modulous lastly asked but this is a bit more work than I am putting out today. Maybe this weekend I'll work it over. Anyway here is where, in a physics lab it would be found ,in my opinion. 1/2a, 1/2c, 1/2both would be portioned within a HardyW equilibria.The green line shows where the dipole would exist. It is unclear to me if the additions involved were merely designs of the author and less likely designs of nature. In any product I have reduced the two "jars" of Faraday to one botantical use of wood. In any case this is not "extraordinary" but just what is expected in the lab.
Material from
On the Source of Power in the Voltaic Pile by Faraday
Colloids by AG WARD
The Third Dimension of Chemistry by AF Wells
Theory of Dielectrics by Frohlich
and
http://www.pnu.ac.ir/.../Film/plants/media/ch01/lenticel.htmThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-19-2005 03:24 PM

quote:

---

In a remarkable passage,. that could serve as a credo for modern formalism as well, Goethe asserts his central claim for internalist primacy, while also specifying the vital, but secondary, role of adaptation. Internal formation acts as a primary source that "must find external conditions." Adaptation may then shape a range of diversity from an underlying form, but the typal pattern cannot be explained by the secondary modifications, and the adaptations themselves can only express a superficial restructuring of inherent order:

​

Man, in considering all things with reference to himself, is obliged to assume that external forms are determined from within, and this assumption is all the easier for him in that no single living thing is conceivable without complete organization. Internally, this complete organization is clearly defined; thus it must find external conditions that are just as clear and definite, for its external existence is possible only under certain conditions and in certain situations....An animals possesses external usefulness precisely because it has been shaped from without as well as from within, and - more important and quite natural - because the external element can more readily adapt he external form to its own purposes than it can reshape the internal form. We can best see this in a species of seal whose exterior has taken a great deal of the fish character while its skeleton still represents the prefect quadruped (2nd essay on plant metamorphosis, written 1790, in Muller and Engard, 1952,p83).

​

Goethe's views therefore provide a "test case" for a primary thesis of the book. We should, I believe, recognize the space of our intellectual world as inherently structured, by some combination of our evolved mental quirks and the dictates of logic, into a discontinuous arrary of possible, coherent positions - hence the double entendre in the title of the book. These mental positions express "morphologies," just as organisms do. The chief components of these "morphologies" must reside together and interact to build the "essence" of any powerful intellectual system. The components o fa theory's essence should be recognized as both deep and minimal; with other less important and potentially dispensable principles allied to them in secondary webs subject to "restructuring" by "adapatation." (Thus I advocate a minimal set of three principles for defining the essence of Darwinism, while regarding other components of the ususal Darwinian nexus as conjoined more loo...

---

But here we find Gould trying to force an intelligibility of his best test case in>>t0 the difference of organic and inorganic biophysics, without relieveing the historical theology of the burden to translate his lofty wisdom and providential care into relative frequencies of material frequency dependence in an actual correalation by assuming the collectivities need not be only arranged in a circle whether or not we have the mathematical purity/mass to integrate the data or not.As I do not have all of the abilities I need as a physicist and mathematician as of yet I can not be certain that the individuality that BOTH Darwinism and ID relies on, (it would have been a different question (and one I probably would not have tried to answer if the issue was "philosophy of creationism and geneic selectionism")) I can not say if the full resolution that I am working @ is going to come out of society by an individual (me or some else working on similar lines) or by population of newer students in the same objective subjetively replayed by Gould just before his death but seared by the sound of bleating seal at Sea World in the past. Thus without the actual individual it is hard to tell if my ideas on possible taxogeny in plants will work out all of the "poltical" and "national" differences Gould has written on the same subject. I dont know for sure but I surely know some of it. Croizat survives and Goethe does not. It is possible that as I work out the individual values attached to the symbols that the whole physical teleology can not be made to have both extreme ends meet in the circle of this actually but the logic will reside nonetheless and I will be able to show that Gould was over hasty in making a sand castle out of the difference in Paley and Aggasiz's contributions. ID does not individually depart from this goal either, it seemed to me., but Biblical creationism could however. I think the moduluous will still play out in the analysis that this synthesis only pokes at but now, I get ahead of Arach who still wants to say "me too" even though I have posted MuCH information.The quote is from "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", Stephen Jay Gould, The Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 2002 pages 289-290