've not read Asimov's Guide to Science but based on Asimov's reputatin I doubt that he would make such a careless mistake as you suggest. Especially when you don't provide a reference beyond the title, suggesting that you don't have the book in front of you.
A little searching and if found a page from the ICR which indicates that Asimov specifically referred to the peperred moth as an example of evolution in action - as proof against the claim that such had not been observed.
Thr Ridley quote is shorn of context and given no reference at all. In the textbook
Evolution (2nd Edition) Chapter 3 he gives several examples of variation, none of whicb is the peppered moth. One of these is the ring species of the Ensatina salamander in California, which provides strong evidence that microevolution can lead to speciation. Ultimately his argument is that there is no place in the taxonomic hierarchy where we can call a break and say that evolution cannot account for that level. So it would certainly be false to say that Ridley's argument relied on a single example or that he regarded the relatively simple colour change in the peperred moth to be adequate evidence for the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.
You are right to point out that my objection to Johnson's claim was the unfounded accusation against evolutionists. And I say that he is equally to be distrusted in his claims about materialist philosophy.
Your response is that Johnson did not claim that there was a conspiracy. Well I suppose you thnk that it is all right to lie and make false accusations against people who disagree with you so long as you don't invent a conspiracy
Gould's distinction between fact and theory is fine. Your objection seems to be that he does not draw it in a place which is rhetorically convenient for you. Johnson's argument is that common descent is infereed from data rather than directly observed. However that is not sufficient to state that common descent is not a fact under Gould's definition, which you yourself quoted earlier in the thread. The argument you quote from Johnson simply dismisses the evidence without justification.
I note that you are finally trying to get specific about your mathematical points. Unfortunately we should not expect there to be detailed mathematical treatments to be inferred from fossil evidence. Whie we can measure rates of morphological change and see that they are consistent with evolution there is litttle more available. Analyses of the evidence is in better shape and we can infer relationships through the construction of cladograms. Genetic evidence taken from modern life is in even better shape - genetic "clock" evidence can be used to identify branch points in ancestry.
However we should not expect to produce long range predictions of future evolution - because evolution is dependent on the variations that become available through mutation and on a species interaction with its environment neither of which cna usefully be predicted. The best we can do is make short-range predictions about the spread of genes.
On to one more subject"
quote:
quote:
However the fact that there are knowledgable people who are definitely NOT materialists and yet accept evolution IS evidence against Bohlin and Johnson's assertion.
But what about the "knowledgable people" who think that Christians are basically crazy for thinking that they can reconcile evolution with any kind of benevolent God-like creative force?
What about them ? Many of their arguments work even better against creationism than they do against the forms of theistic evolution espoused by people like Miller.
Provine's argument is against Deism, not Christianity.
Simpson's quote is not relevant to Miller's position
Pearcey is an ID supporter (and, not so far as I know especially knowledgable in the relevant science) and therefore directly oppsoed to acceptance of evolution
Even if the materialists are right (and IMHO the God-concept is too slippery to be so easily caught) it is not even evidence that evolution is based on materialist philosophy - it is more loikely to be the case that it is beause materialim is true. Whereas the existence of non-materialists who accept evolution is strong evidence that any such basis is at least inobvious, even to people with a good understanding of the theory and the evidence..
(If you really want to investigate the matter I would strongly suggest reading Miller's book
FInding Darwin\s God where he sets out his view.)
I also strognly suggest that you not rely on creationist and ID sources as you seem to be doing. THe Ruse quote is well-known nd he does not deny that evolution is valid science. That it is a religion to some people is not adequate to support Johnson's claim. Lewontin speaks of science's commitment to methodological, not philosphical materialism (Johnson is known for conflating the two).
Indeed it is significant that you rely entirely on quotes and opinions - not once do you actually try to make a direct case for Johnson and Bohlin's claim. Is it because there IS no case ?
quote:
Except the part you were replying to did not deal with MY impressions but the impression Johnson is trying to create.So what you are really saying is that you don't care if what Johnson says is true or not. You're going to support it anyway.
But PaulK, I've already given my own "impressions" and noted that they were worthless too.
[/quote]
And there you confirm what I said. Rather than actually addressing the point I made you come out with another irrelevance. Obviously you don't care that Johnson is a dishonest propagandist and will invoke any excuse to avoid dealing with that fact.
As for your claim that everyone is "gung-ho" to ignore the theoretical issues I remind you that this sub-thread started with a message on a single point. What you actually seem to be complaining about is the failure of your attempt to bury that point under a mountain of diversion.
™ Version 4.2
