Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

It takes a lot of effort to read Agustine contemporaneously to about the mid 60s when GC Williams limited as far as I know this "city" (as to the e/c debate) with

quote:

---

"There is one respect, however, in which there is general agreeement. Always when biotic adaptation is postulated, its immediate or ultimate effect is the improvement of the situtation from a traditional asthetic point of view."p233 George C. Williams ADAPTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION

---

hence from Bakker I can try to read

quote:

---

I pulled my battered City of God out of my vest and read some neat passages about Doctrine and astronomy. Augustine really sings when he combines Nature with Scripture. He loved spiders and rabbits and saw created beauty even in a biting sand fly. And he lectured new converts that they should appreciate real science, even when taught by a Pagan.

---

what for Kant was split between dynamics and math. When I got to Cornell in the 80s biologists seemed to have forgoten that they never showed how the individual itself was to be COUNTED.I dont know if Mayr tried to find this immediately proximate but if that is how he had, even if only once, read Williams, I would say he was mistaken given that such a person as a Bakker exists.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-10-2005 09:11 PM

Gould had rejected Dawkins' lingo changes from "The Selfish Gene" to "The Blind Watchmaker" and it seems that Richard's cagey ness about the lock ness of cve or evc(have it your way) is only scientifically about this. I rejected personally the first title and seeing Gould making a structure out of it at last I find that if one simply overturns Williams' argument of snake venom and rattle tails and community effects via a physical causality (not biological supervienence)(energy intensive molecues incident in some theoretcial space of zygote differences with trophic level organizations etc) with facts (to be counted as they are collected) then both Mayr's proximate and ultimately his teleonomic systems dissipate in the equilibrated game and the wordy ness that borders on anti-cve in Dawkins removes itself without the book keeping of Gould. Gould would have to be additionally mistken that cross level effects ARE potentials in the electrotonic and other physics' senses and I know that is only my own reading. Nonetheless if the information content of zygote A and B of Williams is rendered measureable in nature via Dedekind's and Frege's rejection of Cantors reals of A, B, C...L then indeed the community can be counted in ways that Williams did not need to discipline and Dawkins can be read as over writing PRECISELY as Gould surmised about him and not about the relation of Gould and Dawkins in the community issues of creationism.

Yes it nice to see you say you disagree with Gould on magesisteriality. I view it that way as well.In Bakker's relay of Augustine and sand flies this thread comes up to Williams'

quote:

---

In dealing with various possible kinds of biotic adapation I have confined the discussion to the problem of whether the phenomenon really operates in the manner envisioned, and whether they suggest any creative evolutionary force besides the natural selection of alternative alleles.

---

The kind of errors that person might make biologically in interpreting Augustine on the "song" of nature relate to the boy scout type information Williams narrates inter alia, about frogs calling "in order to aid their fellows in finding water" and such the likes of if rattle snakes are advertising danger ably (tail vs head) etc.I could take up the relation of Williams to Gould and Dawkins futher by reference to Figure 2 in the book in another thread if you would like. I categorically deny that there has been any adaptive "hardening" in the constricted community of evoutionary thinkers. Dawkins didn't seperate out the religious elements far enough. I have not read his last book. Williams IS mistaken where physical law exists in groups biologically that ARE NOT telenomic yet man-makeable educts of teleological determinations. This IS NOT a meme of it. It might be also. Williams went on to indicate the ecosystems were too loose to be causal in this approximate sense but I dont see how energy intensive molecular dissections of endemic places won't find biogeographic homlogy replacing the trophic pyramid at supramolecular levels of organization. If that was already found there is not either the effect of genic selectionism as provisioned in the past nor the affect of species selection in the manner already envisioned. This is a work in process where zygote information of different life cycles can be more than this reflectively considered.If you are just as confused with this post dont feel obliged to carry it further just now. I will read around some of your posts once I get back in Ithaca and begin the new semester and am done with summer.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-11-2005 06:37 PM