(2019-02-01, 05:57 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Fair enough. But I’ll settle for “mystery” over anyone claiming “god”, “MAL”, “aliens” etc... or anyone else claiming they’ve got it all figured out.
Why do you assume that such people (like me) ‘claim they’ve got it all figured out’? It’s just my favoured opinion.
(2019-02-01, 12:56 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]It would be interesting if you could cite a leading expert in the field who has espoused some form of spiritual Darwinism. The only one I can think of is the co-creator at the same time as Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace.
This is from Wiki, which doesn't do these kind of topics justice.
Quote:When Charles Darwin died, Romanes defended Darwin's theories by attempting to rebut criticisms and attacks levied by other psychologists against the Darwinian school of thought. Romanes expanded on Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection by advancing a theory of behaviour based on comparative psychology. In Animal Intelligence, Romanes demonstrated similarities and dissimilarities between cognitive and physical functions of various animals.[20] In Mental Evolution in Animals, Romanes illustrated the evolution of the cognitive and physical functions associated with animal life. Romanes believed that animal intelligence evolves through behavioural conditioning, or positive reinforcement.[21] Romanes then published Mental Evolution in Man, which focused on the evolution of human cognitive and physical functions.[22]
In 1890, Romanes published Darwin, and After Darwin,[23] where he attempted to explain the relationship between science and religion. All of his notes on this subject were left to Charles Gore. Gore used the notes in preparing Thoughts on Religion, and published the work under Romanes's name.[14] The Life and Letters of George Romanes, offers a semi-autobiographical account of Romanes's life.[4]
Romanes came back to a religious worldview, after being influenced by Darwin.
(2019-02-01, 01:43 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you assume that such people (like me) ‘claim they’ve got it all figured out’? It’s just my favoured opinion.
Clearly my comment didn’t apply to you then Stan...
(2019-02-01, 05:21 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking more the other way around - How [d]o Mathematical Platonists in academia feel about Darwinism?
I was thinking there might be some evolutionary advantage to recognizing the mathematical structure. The dualism here, as I see it, would be between the mathematical realm and the material one.
The question is figuring out what a proto-version of mathematical understanding might be like. Obvious recognition of numbers can be an evolutionary advantage, but is there an evolutionary advantage to something that translates to theorem proving capabilities?
Might as well ask what evolutionary selective advantage would have accrued to the ability to write or appreciate poetry, a Shakespeare play, a Chopin piano sonata, or a portrait by Rembrandt. Or for that matter the capability to undergo a deep NDE. Doesn't seem a sensible question. I think these and other higher human mental faculties must have some other sort of origin or source altogether.
The fruitfulness criterion in science:
Many consider Francis Bacon to be the founder of the scientific method. He put the ‘fruitfulness’ criterion for determining whether something is science or not as follows: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” (Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum)
There are a lot of good and useful results issuing from the pragmatic field of biologically inspired design - that is, technological designs based on the ingenious designs of nature in biology. Contrasted with this, what has Darwinism done for the world lately?
Quote:"....the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct?
.........................
Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
From
this 2005 article, entitled Why Do We Invoke Darwin?, by Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
(2019-02-13, 02:18 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]The fruitfulness criterion in science:
Many consider Francis Bacon to be the founder of the scientific method. He put the ‘fruitfulness’ criterion for determining whether something is science or not as follows: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” (Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum)
There are a lot of good and useful results issuing from the pragmatic field of biologically inspired design - that is, technological designs based on the ingenious designs of nature in biology. Contrasted with this, what has Darwinism done for the world lately?
From this 2005 article, entitled Why Do We Invoke Darwin?, by Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Given the main focus of this forum is psi research, I’m unsure how highly fruitfulness rates.
That said, your article looks terribly dated in view of recent advances in CRISPR technologies alone.
(2019-02-13, 05:53 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]...your article looks terribly dated in view of recent advances in CRISPR technologies alone.
The discovery of the CRISPR-Cas procaryote microbial adaptive immune system was followed by the development of a genome editing tool modeled on it, so this is a prime example of biologically inspired design.
(2019-02-13, 05:53 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ] in view of recent advances in CRISPR technologies alone.
OHHHH Yeah From the linked article
Quote: From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology. - PHILIP SKELL