tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post2426098818923012737..comments2023-10-12T01:36:25.094-06:00Comments on Origin(al) Thoughts: Further thoughts on the Introduction and Chapters I-IIJA Ludtkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18040770172996576788noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-51699750232918985142009-01-23T11:02:00.000-07:002009-01-23T11:02:00.000-07:00Hi Tonya,Faith hasn't been universally considered ...Hi Tonya,<BR/><BR/>Faith hasn't been universally considered as something one holds independent of all evidence. For instance, natural theology sought in nature evidence of God's hand, based on an assumed ("hypothesized", if you like) view of what God was like and what sort of world he would create. Paley was an eloquent natural theologian, who took the existence of complicated, well-adapted organisms as evidence for God the Designer. That's why vestigial organs and "poorly-designed" traits (such as our use of the same tube for breathing and swallowing food, leaving us open to choking) have long been taken as evidence against Paley's ideas and in favor of Darwin's. <BR/><BR/>One could of course argue that, in their desire for evidence for their faith, natural theologians were not truly faithful, but they themselves wouldn't have seen it that way. <BR/><BR/>Darwin himself prefaces The Origin with two quotes (from Whewell and Bacon) on the relationship between science and faith. Make of these what you will...Dr. Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02948439373673427525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-4189717715612304462009-01-22T21:16:00.000-07:002009-01-22T21:16:00.000-07:00In regards to point 3, I am curious to know how cr...In regards to point 3, I am curious to know how creationism has been pitched as a hypothesis that can be refuted. After all, having faith in something means that you accept it no matter what.Tonyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07201348500020029001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-18685523635263195562009-01-22T08:54:00.000-07:002009-01-22T08:54:00.000-07:00I really appreciate the comment in 3a. Very intere...I really appreciate the comment in 3a. Very interesting - the idea that the theory was developed to support an observation, and then those same observations are supposed to provide the facts that support the theory. Circular argument.Sabrinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737510048454590265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-89148072094085874652009-01-21T18:48:00.000-07:002009-01-21T18:48:00.000-07:00I certainly agree that Darwin's theory went on to ...I certainly agree that Darwin's theory went on to demonstrate its predictive value (e.g., Darwin's famous prediction of the existence of an as-yet-undiscovered long-tongued moth species). But that doesn't go to the issue of the evidential value of previously-known facts. <BR/><BR/>Some philosophers have tried to distinguish between known facts that were "used" in constructing the theory (and so can't be said to support the theory), and facts that were not so used. But it's often difficult to say exactly what facts were "used" in constructing a given theory.<BR/><BR/>Lorraine suggests that there's a difference between unifications that have scientific merit, and those that don't. I'm of two minds about this myself. Part of me wants to say that this notion needs to be fleshed out; what's at issue here is precisely what constitutes "scientific merit." It's perhaps obvious that silly theories like conspiracy theories provide an entirely ad-hoc and illusory "unifying explanation" of different phenomena. But there are plenty of real scientific cases where there's been debate about exactly what facts a theory should be expected to explain. But there's another part of me that's suspects that no clear-cut, universal criteria could ever be provided to distinguish scientifically-mertiorious unifying theories from the other kind. All we can do is collect new evidence and see which theories stand the test of time and which don't.Dr. Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02948439373673427525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-16612196145647583152009-01-21T16:01:00.000-07:002009-01-21T16:01:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lorrainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10881485880029406939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744965080541349300.post-32343908653557604292009-01-21T16:00:00.000-07:002009-01-21T16:00:00.000-07:00The philosophy of 3a interests me and convinces me...The philosophy of 3a interests me and convinces me more of the value of Darwin's theory (but then it would take a lot to convince me otherwise [that is not a challenge])<BR/><BR/>If a theory was developed in order to explain certain facts then it does make sense that those facts are consistent with the theory. <BR/><BR/>Where Darwin's theory goes above and beyond is that 150 years later, new facts from new experiments are still supporting observable natural selection. He could not have predicted events 150 years in the future.<BR/><BR/>Read this article:<BR/>B.R. Grant, and P.R. Grant (1993) Evolution of Darwin's Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event 251: 111-117<BR/><BR/>As far as unification counting as evidence in favor of a theory.. I think that so long as that unification makes valid scientific sense that it should be considered a valid theory. The actions of a god can be used to explain a wide variety apparently disparate facts and unify them. This idea as stated before, is not however a valid scientific hypothesis.Lorrainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10881485880029406939noreply@blogger.com