May 2002


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
John Landon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 31 May 2002 17:41:47 EDT
text/plain (25 lines)
I think the discussion of the design Trojan horse has been misread here.
Either Darwin had a theory that refuted Paley or he did not. Since even the
Nation reviewer suddenly grasped that Darwin didn't have a theory, Paley is
back from the grave, hopefully not Dracula style. Has anyone read Dempski's
no Free Lunch? Not bad. But I haven't seen anyone see the catch and I am not
sure that I have. Paul Davies is cleverer still, and says nothing here.  Cf.
his The Fifth Miracle. It is futile to say this is bad science (which it
probably is) if Darwin is also bad science, and so few defending Darwin have
Dempski's math skills. That alone makes me suspicious. I know enough math to
see window dressing (in part). The problem is that Darwinists use the same
tactics. So how decide?
I think Dempski answers his own question without realizing it. He
distinguishes Chance, Necessity, and then Design. Necessity, there's the
middle ground where Gould is losing lift, and the design people are still
spiritualizing the vacuum of 'necessity' theories, a la Kaufman's At Home in
the Universe, where he is properly cognizant of the void in theory in the
vacuous Darwinism.

John Landon
Website on the eonic effect
 [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]