I'm very interested in evolution and abiogenesis. I believe that it happened. I don't see a lot of evidence that humans understand HOW.
Anyway, Fred is often interesting and sometimes cogent. Here's Fred with an interesting observation on standards of evidence:
'Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way. Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.
'As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean, I think, that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.'
http://www.unz.com/freed/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/
They say you can't get a PhD unless you have a burning question that you want to answer. Well, here's mine: WHAT MAKES IT WORK?!? How do you pose a machine-learning (parallel hill-climbing) question such that "complex multicellular ecologies" is the answer, as opposed to say "networks of self-replicating simple crystals"? Someday when I retire, I'll make that my PhD question and pursue a doctorate.
--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
Anyway, Fred is often interesting and sometimes cogent. Here's Fred with an interesting observation on standards of evidence:
'Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way. Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility.
'As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure. By this they mean, I think, that they cannot imagine how else it might have come about. (Neither can I. Does one accept a poor explanation because unable to think of a good one?) This accidental-life theory, being somewhat plausible, is therefore accepted without the usual standards of science, such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Putting it otherwise, evolutionists are too attached to their ideas to be able to question them.'
http://www.unz.com/freed/darwin-unhinged-the-bugs-in-evolution/
They say you can't get a PhD unless you have a burning question that you want to answer. Well, here's mine: WHAT MAKES IT WORK?!? How do you pose a machine-learning (parallel hill-climbing) question such that "complex multicellular ecologies" is the answer, as opposed to say "networks of self-replicating simple crystals"? Someday when I retire, I'll make that my PhD question and pursue a doctorate.
--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
No comments:
Post a Comment