America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by rcpilotva. 4 replies replies.
FOR RCPILOTVA
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
New England biologist Denton continues the assault on Darwinian science, especially the theories of evolution and natural selection, that he began in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Here, Denton takes a page out of the work of 19th-century natural theologians like William Paley and 19th-century anti-Darwinian scientists like Robert Chambers to contend that, far from being random and without direction, the laws of nature operate by design. Moreover, says Denton, the design of the laws of the universe inevitably lead to one conclusion: "The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning." (BUT BY WHAT FORCE)

Denton marshals a dizzying array of scientific evidence to bolster his conclusions. First, he examines the evidence from physics and chemistry for the inevitability that the development of a universe like ours would have the evolution of life as its goal. He discusses gravity, the nuclear energy levels of certain atoms, water, light, carbon, uranium and more as elements whose existence is perfectly orchestrated to usher human life onto the universe's stage. Denton then discusses evolutionary biology, arguing that the biocentric nature of the universe undermines the Darwinian principles of contingent natural selection. Denton's arguments are weakened by their circular nature (he assumes design in nature and proceeds to make pieces fit his argument whether they do so easily or not), but his prose is engaging and his insights are accessible to readers who lack a deep scientific background. In the growing debate over Darwin's theories, Denton's voice remains one of the most notable and compelling.

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=7&fldAuto=80

From Library Journal
Biolgist and medical researcher Denton argues that the laws of nature and the conditions on this planet exist for the inevitable origin of carbon-based life on Earth as well as the necessary emergence of the intelligent human animal (both events are assumed to be unique in this universe). (I THIK HE ASSUMES TOO MUCH)

In great detail, he examines the prerequisites and constituents required for the living cell: water, carbon, metals, oxygen, DNA, proteins, and solar radiation. Furthermore, Denton claims that a long chain of pervasive coincidences is supremely fit for the existence of life and our own species as the determined end of this evolving cosmos. Grounded in both teleology and biocentricity, his directed evolution is a combination of the anthropic principle and natural theology. Glaringly absent, however, is any serious consideration of the ramifications of evil, mutations, mass extinctions, contingency, and exobiology. Most scientists will reject Denton's commitment to purpose evolution as ill conceived and unconvincing.
Your search - "Kirkus Evolutionary Law" - did not match any documents.

with out the quotes

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Kirkus+Evolutionary+Law&spell=1

enjoy yourself.


google search
DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,635
I submit the following as a "sidebar"...

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,635
As scientists aren't we required to recreate our experiments for prosperity's sake? If it's flawed then how can we expand on it?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/18law05.htm
rcpilotva Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-12-2004
Posts: 99
thx, rick. i have not heard of denton, but this article's author's type of reasoning is old.

both camps can and sometimes do use circular logic. both camps do retain the data they like and reject what doesn't fit well. this is not new. both camps can descend into as homenim (sp) attacks when out of ammo. this article give no evidence, only the author's opinion.

"Glaringly absent, however, is any serious consideration of the ramifications of evil, mutations, mass extinctions, contingency, and exobiology. Most scientists will reject Denton's commitment to purpose evolution as ill conceived and unconvincing."

maybe denton's lecture was held to just 4 hours, so he couldn't get to these other weighty issues? :)

notice how theoligical issues always seem to creep in. how is evil, or the concept of evil tied into the debate? what in the world is "purpose evolution" and "natural theology"?
"most scientists"? - who and how many is most? like i've posted earlier, there is little agreement amongst the origins camps - only when defending the evolutionary theory do they circle the wagons.

good questions for discussion.

(i am still looking for Kirkut's book - i think it may be at my office - i used it as reference 5 or so yrs ago - i'll keep looking. I recall he is/was german, the book published in the mid 20th century. i got a translation i think, and it wasn't very long.)
rcpilotva Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-12-2004
Posts: 99
rick - found the book reference re: Kerkut - i've jumped to your new C vs E thread.
Users browsing this topic
Guest