Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I don’t think there is anything new here. We have a Christian philosopher cherry picking the evidence he likes and ignoring the weight of the contrary. His own spin is put on other ‘evidence’. He has a predictably narrow view of ‘the physical’.

Oh dear, Malf, you disappoint me. I said when I posted this in the other (materialism thread) that I expected an ad hom response and here it is immediately. He makes no case from faith or religion in his presentation yet you can't resist using his Christianity against him. So I can just as easily say that you are bound to support materialism because of your atheism. The cherry picking argument is lazy too - I think he was pretty thorough in outlining the main challenges to materialism although, as @nbtruthman has mentioned, he probably didn't go far enough in not including empirical evidence. I have no doubt that if he had included that evidence (psi, etc.) he would have been condemned by skeptics for peddling woo. 

So either admit that you are just offended by the fact that someone challenges your ideology of be more specific in your counter argument.

By the way, I think the other thread is more appropriate for discussion of materialism in general, I just posted it here because neo-darwinism is included but the talk is not exclusively about that.

Again, for those who seem determined to reduce this debate to secular vs religious viewpoints, it may be wise to heed the words of Thomas Nagel, here quoted from his review of a book by christian philiosopher, Alvin Platinga.

The interest of this book, especially for secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar. Plantinga writes clearly and accessibly, and sometimes acidly—in response to aggressive critics of religion like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. His comprehensive stand is a valuable contribution to this debate.

I say this as someone who cannot imagine believing what he believes. But even those who cannot accept the theist alternative should admit that Plantinga’s criticisms of naturalism are directed at the deepest problem with that view—how it can account for the appearance, through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry, of conscious beings like ourselves, capable of discovering those laws and understanding the universe that they govern. Defenders of naturalism have not ignored this problem, but I believe that so far, even with the aid of evolutionary theory, they have not proposed a credible solution. Perhaps theism and materialist naturalism are not the only alternatives

Did I hear him claim that fundamental particles have flavor and color? I guess physicists are a bit too whimsical.

Linda

lol  There is no "claiming".  Just the facts.  And while the names maybe odd to you - evolutions in the state of quarks were defined as changing colors and flavors many decades ago.

lol  There is no "claiming".  Just the facts.  And while the names maybe odd to you - evolutions in the state of quarks were defined as changing colors and flavors many decades ago.

I'm aware of that (hence my comment about whimsical physicists).

He seemed to think that meant they had a taste and a hue. I suppose he also thinks that their social skills range from the awkward to the enchanting.

Linda

I'm aware of that (hence my comment about whimsical physicists).

He seemed to think that meant they had a taste and a hue. I suppose he also thinks that their social skills range from the awkward to the enchanting.

Linda

Really? 

I mean, I have no formal education in science yet even I knew those terms are not literal yet the sneering skeptic points a finger and sniggers as though the man is clueless. According to his bio, he is anything but clueless, however.

I teach metaphysics, philosophy of religion, philosophical logic, and ancient and medieval philosophy at the University of Texas. I've been at UT for 24 years, after having studied philosophy at Michigan State, Oxford and UCLA.
I have authored two books, Paradoxes of Belief and Strategic Rationality (Cambridge Univ., 1997) and Realism Regained (Oxford Univ., 2000), and co-edited a third, The Waning of Materialism (OUP, 2010, with George Bealer). Tim Pickavance and I are at work on a textbook in Metaphysics for Blackwell/Wiley.
I'm the president of the Texas Association of Scholars, the statewide affiliate of the NAS, and I am Senator-at-Large of the Phi Beta Kappa Society. the nation's oldest and most prestigious honor society. This year (2014-15), I am a visiting research fellow at the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

One of his published papers is a critique of the MWI of quantum mechanics so, clearly, he has some understanding of physics too. His more formal paper covering the subject matter in the video is here, for anyone able to follow the academic language.

http://robkoons.net/media/3d211414d9a8a6...af2815.pdf

Care to share your bio, Linda?

I dunno. He said that quantum mechanics gives us glimpses of many purely qualitative parameters. Instead of talking about shape and size, we're talking about "color", "flavor"...

Their use with respect to quarks aren't qualitative (especially "purely qualitative"). They'd only be qualitative if you were actually talking about human perceptions of "color" and "flavor".

However, if it appears that I intentionally misrepresented his proposition because it was easier to defeat than his real argument, that would be unfortunate. It sucks when someone does that.

Linda

Oh, those idiot physicists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

~~ Paul

Really? 

I mean, I have no formal education in science yet even I knew those terms are not literal yet the sneering skeptic points a finger and sniggers as though the man is clueless. According to his bio, he is anything but clueless, however.


One of his published papers is a critique of the MWI of quantum mechanics so, clearly, he has some understanding of physics too. His more formal paper covering the subject matter in the video is here, for anyone able to follow the academic language.

http://robkoons.net/media/3d211414d9a8a6...af2815.pdf

Care to share your bio, Linda?

He may be clueless. His first or so statement as I recall is QM is immaterial. Note QM ( Quantum Mechanics) also known as quantum physics is a branch of physics, it is not call quantum metaphysics nor does it categorically by definition deal with immaterialism. It relates to us there is a counter intuitive form of physical which some have bastardized to suit there philosophical persuasions. But true to form he as a philosopher attempts to argue persuasively without formal education in this discipline a philosophical  theoretical foundation which cannot be subject to falsification. Why would someone without formal science education in physics turn to someone whom also according to the *information supplied by you has no formal physics education rely upon such a person to validate their position?

Each night when I retire to bed I experience not a shred of angst that upon waking materialism will have been replace by the immaterial world. I wonder if you sleep as restfully as me?

* I did an independent look see at his academic qualitifications, to find physics let alone quantum physics are not listed. As a matter of fact he listed no training in any branch of science.

The more I dig into this Koons character the more unsavoury he looks. He appears to be one of those philosophers who feels he needs to pontificate on what we do with our genitals:

http://robkoons.net/media/fca3f155856019...af2815.pdf