Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[BCP1928]

Is that what she means? I could be wrong, but from the literature I have on her, I wasn't under the impression that she thought about methodology in that way.

My sense of it has always been that a big problem that creationists (biblical and otherwise) have with evolution is its contingency. They are looking for Telos in the wrong place.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, and it was interesting to hear Lisa Randall talk about some of that today, however partially.

Lisa Randall is all politics.
I'd be interested in listening to her views .. any references/links?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My sense of it has always been that a big problem that creationists (biblical and otherwise) have with evolution is its contingency. They are looking for Telos in the wrong place.

I thought you were referring to what she, herself, thinks from her own perspective rather than what she spots through critique about what IDist think in their own perspective.

I guess I'm not clear on your reference. Personally, I don't look for Telos at all where the ToE is concerned, at least not in scientific terms. I might in terms of ancient philosophy which I don't use as "science."

The only place I know where Telos lives in connection with biology, minus any strange epigenetic affects we haven't discovered yet, is in Marxist thought and Communism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lisa Randall is all politics.
I'd be interested in listening to her views .. any references/links?

Sure. Here's what I came across today as I was strolling through the YT:

 

[SelfSim]

Sure. Here's what I came across today as I was strolling through the YT:

Interesting.

I think I'd describe her commentary there about modelling/theories etc, as being a very modern/up-to-date view of what science has evolved into, but the essence of the scientific method still underpins what she had to say.

PS: I don't think she was speaking politically there, either. The professional roles she's played involve making key funding decisions .. hence my comment about her being predominantly 'political' .. (twas a bit unfair on my part, I guess .. I'll retract the comment on that basis).

 

[BCP1928]

I thought you were referring to what she, herself, thinks from her own perspective rather than what she spots through critique about what IDist think in their own perspective.

I guess I'm not clear on your reference. Personally, I don't look for Telos at all where the ToE is concerned, at least not in scientific terms. I might in terms of ancient philosophy which I don't use as "science."

Evidently you don't use it as it as theology, either.

The only place I know where Telos lives in connection with biology, minus any strange epigenetic affects we haven't discovered yet, is in Marxist thought and Communism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evidently you don't use it as it as theology, either.

Not formally in philosophical terms, no. I'm not much on Classical Theology, nor on Natural Theology, or even on the older form of Progressive Theology of Alfred North Whitehead. I've read people like Aquinas, or Paley, or Whitehead, and although each has something interesting or even useful to say, I don't put my eggs into their baskets.

I'm just a plain ol' existentially laden evidentialist Christian, and I try to let science rule first before I engage ideology or "faith."

And in a similar way to how I rely upon Physics rather than old time Metaphysics, I instead rely upon interpretive heuristics in Biblical Eschatology and let that serve as my "prophetic teleology," however obviously low-grade of a metric it can ever be in real time service since it has essentially no respect from a large host of other people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not formally in philosophical terms, no. I'm not much on Classical Theology, nor on Natural Theology, or even on the older form of Progressive Theology of Alfred North Whitehead. I've read people like Aquinas, or Paley, or Whitehead, and although each has something interesting or even useful to say, I don't put my eggs into their baskets.

I'm just a plain ol' existentially laden evidentialist Christian, and I try to let science rule first before I engage ideology or "faith."

And in a similar way to how I rely upon Physics rather than old time Metaphysics, I instead rely upon interpretive heuristics in Biblical Eschatology and let that serve as my "prophetic teleology," however obviously low-grade of a metric it can ever be in real time service since it has essentially no respect from a large host of other people.

Mark 12:37b And the common people heard him gladly.

 

[BCP1928]

Not formally in philosophical terms, no. I'm not much on Classical Theology, nor on Natural Theology, or even on the older form of Progressive Theology of Alfred North Whitehead. I've read people like Aquinas, or Paley, or Whitehead, and although each has something interesting or even useful to say, I don't put my eggs into their baskets.

I'm just a plain ol' existentially laden evidentialist Christian, and I try to let science rule first before I engage ideology or "faith."

And in a similar way to how I rely upon Physics rather than old time Metaphysics, I instead rely upon interpretive heuristics in Biblical Eschatology and let that serve as my "prophetic teleology," however obviously low-grade of a metric it can ever be in real time service since it has essentially no respect from a large host of other people.

You understand what I mean, then, when I say that creationists--particularly IDists--are looking for necessary causes in contingent causality, and why Traditional Christians don't think they'll find them there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You understand what I mean, then, when I say that creationists--particularly IDists--are looking for necessary causes in contingent causality, and why Traditional Christians don't think they'll find them there.

Generally yes, I understand, but honestly, I have a love/hate relationship with the whole notion of 'causality.'

Feel free to briefly spell out what you specifically mean by your description of "necessary causes in contingent causality" in relation to the relative terms of 'design' and 'irreducible complexity.'

 

[BCP1928]

Generally yes, I understand, but honestly, I have a love/hate relationship with the whole notion of 'causality.'

Feel free to briefly spell out what you specifically mean by your description of "necessary causes in contingent causality" in relation to the relative terms of 'design' and 'irreducible complexity.'

IDists wish to demonstrate the presence of "design" (in one of the two equivocal ways in which they use the term) i.e. purpose in living creatures--a necessary cause. To do this, they attempt to show that the "design" (the other meaning of the term) I.e. the functional layout of the components--a product of contingent causality--must have been brought about by a "designer" wielding contingent causality alongside natural causes. The presence of irreducable complexity, supposed to be evidence of this intelligent tinkering, has never been demonstrated in biological structures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

IDists wish to demonstrate the presence of "design" (in one of the two equivocal ways in which they use the term) i.e. purpose in living creatures--a necessary cause. To do this, they attempt to show that the "design" (the other meaning of the term) I.e. the functional layout of the components--a product of contingent causality--must have been brought about by a "designer" wielding contingent causality alongside natural causes. The presence of irreducable complexity, supposed to be evidence of this intelligent tinkering, has never been demonstrated in biological structures.

Right. So both you and I can say that we don't share in affirming with them the metric observance or the quantifying measure of their chosen philosophical heuristic. And thus, we don't see the presence of necessary causes in a contingent context which IDers assert is evidenced by their heuristic, but as Christians we don't have to feel ontologically stalled out in our theology simply because we don't "see" this presence. We have other resources.