Comments on: Contra PC http://www.mandm.org.nz/2007/09/contra-pc.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=contra-pc Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Theology and Jurisprudence Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:33:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MarkS http://www.mandm.org.nz/2007/09/contra-pc.html#comment-95 MarkS Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:02:00 +0000 http://mandm.churchweb.co.nz/2007/09/contra-pc/#comment-95 I think that the real problem here is the word proof. Proof isn't objective, even though some people would like to think so. For example, take the assertion: "that the country Nambia exists". I've never been there, but I accept that it does indeed exist. What proof do I have? Well, I have seen it on atlases, Google Earth, and I have seen their rugby team on TV recently. However, I haven't been there. So in this case the "proof" of some pictures, a bit of software, and some TV footage means "proof". Really, that is quite circumstantial! What I may accept as proof, others will reject, and vice versa. For example, I believe in God while others won't, while they will believe in vast conspiracies and I won't. And probably the same level of proof for both! I think that the real problem here is the word proof. Proof isn’t objective, even though some people would like to think so. For example, take the assertion: “that the country Nambia exists”. I’ve never been there, but I accept that it does indeed exist. What proof do I have? Well, I have seen it on atlases, Google Earth, and I have seen their rugby team on TV recently. However, I haven’t been there. So in this case the “proof” of some pictures, a bit of software, and some TV footage means “proof”. Really, that is quite circumstantial! What I may accept as proof, others will reject, and vice versa. For example, I believe in God while others won’t, while they will believe in vast conspiracies and I won’t. And probably the same level of proof for both!

]]> By: Greg B http://www.mandm.org.nz/2007/09/contra-pc.html#comment-94 Greg B Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:45:00 +0000 http://mandm.churchweb.co.nz/2007/09/contra-pc/#comment-94 This isn't on the topic but it is relevant to the familiar position of atheism founded on evolution. Often you will find that the conception of 'evolution' is 'Dawkinism', which had been derived from his popular books and self-promotion. In this situation it is frequenty assumed that the book is closed on evolution and that 'Darkinism' alone provides a solid enough to build criticisms of all alternatives.<br/><br/>With this in mind I direct you to a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.<br/><br/>From Lynch (2007)<br/>"It has long been known that natural selection is just one<br/>of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin’s treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins’ (7–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading."<br/><br/>PDF available:<br/>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702207104v1.pdf This isn’t on the topic but it is relevant to the familiar position of atheism founded on evolution. Often you will find that the conception of ‘evolution’ is ‘Dawkinism’, which had been derived from his popular books and self-promotion. In this situation it is frequenty assumed that the book is closed on evolution and that ‘Darkinism’ alone provides a solid enough to build criticisms of all alternatives.

With this in mind I direct you to a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

From Lynch (2007)
“It has long been known that natural selection is just one
of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin’s treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins’ (7–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.”

PDF available:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702207104v1.pdf

]]>