• In total there are 37 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 37 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

GK Chesteron

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

Paradigms work well for long periods of time when their conceptual framework is sufficient to explain observed phenomena.
as new phenomena are discovered at some point the theory which governs the paradigm loses explanatory power, at which point, a crisis occurs.

Several scientists including Massimo P have stated it can be reasonably argued that evolutionary biology has never underdone a paradigm shift. It is the same paradigm. What's needed is an extension of the "Modern Synthesis" up and including a new conceptual framework (ie paradigm shift).

I have no doubt whatsoever neo Darwinism (the boiler plate) will be overhauled at some point - however gradual.
Biology is moving very fast - too fast for it in certain areas.

Yes, it strikes me as odd that you refer to evolutionary theory as Darwinian theory. And that's why I asked.


That's fine if it does.
Last edited by ant on Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

Ps

Start another post if you wish. This one is well on its way to being hijacked.

I suspect what's at stake is what's at risk emotionally : the philosophy of materialism which certain people faithfully believe in.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely no reason to question ANYTHING about evolution. Not sure how things veer close to creationism. It's a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

Why not make a list of points of contention, put evolution and move on instead of worrying the same point to exhaustion?
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:Yes, yes, yes, absolutely no reason to question ANYTHING about evolution. Not sure how things veer close to creationism. It's a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

Why not make a list of points of contention, put evolution and move on instead of worrying the same point to exhaustion?
By all means, question evolution. What aspect of evolution do you question, Stahrwe? It would be a refreshing change of pace to talk specifics.

I was merely responding to Ant's assertion that evolution needs an “overhaul.” That’s the word he used. I brought up the following specific points:

1) So far the evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory. There's no real debate here (except those imagined by creationists) and thus no need to challenge our basic assumptions (paradigms).

2) There's no arbitrary timetable that says the theory has to explain everything on the "micro level" or it needs revamping.

3) Evolutionary theory continues to be refined and branch out in new directions. Just as it's supposed to do. Since Ant claimed that natural selection doesn't go far enough to explain the changes of gene frequency in a population (the domain of micro-evolution), I pointed out that natural selection is only one mechanism being studied. And that, for example, mutation and genetic drift also can influence changes in gene frequency.

Ant also stated that evolutionary theory doesn't "adequately" explain embryonic development. “Adequate” for whom? That's a red herring if I ever saw one.

So then I asked Ant again, specifically, is evolutionary theory in crisis. More or less he referred to an article by Massimo Pigliucci. I've read the article and I don't think Pigliucci is saying that evolution is in crisis or in need of a paradigm shift. He seems to be saying that it needs further refinement and clarification (a new conceptual lens), which is exactly what has been happening with evolutionary theory for the past 150 years?

I think we are far from needing an overhaul (paradigm shift) in evolutionary theory. But if we ever do, bring it on. The sooner the better.

Hey, here's that article by Pigliucci:

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/201 ... ry-theory/

His conclusion:
In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter what we call it. Phenotypic plasticity, evolvability, epigenetics, niche construction, facilitated variation and all the rest are here to stay. But, we do usually label different versions of scientific theories with different names, and for good reasons. They mark significant advances in our understanding of the world, and of course recognize the work that went into making those advances, as well as the people who did that work. There certainly is no need for antagonism, on either side of the divide, we can and should all work together to further biological research. But it is hard to see what could possibly justify — given all of the above and much, much more — this recalcitrance to recognize that biology is entering a new phase of its history. It’s a very exciting phase, and one that will, thankfully, soon be in the hands of todays’ graduate students and young researchers.
Note that Pigliucci says that biology is already entering a new phase. There's hesitation by some in the academic community to acknowledge that new phase. That's where the bickering comes in. This is all highly esoteric stuff. This is not a theory in crisis, which would be the prelude to a paradigm shift.

Okay, that last paragraph is point #4.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

Just a couple of things:

What central conclusions are you talking about?

Your link is not that publication I was referring too.

The discussion of a needed conceptual shift with biological evolution would impact evolution and its attempt at synthesis.
No one said anything about time running out or a time clock that's set. These are philosophical considerations, which is where paradigm shifts begin.
Ant also stated that evolutionary theory doesn't "adequately" explain embryonic development. “Adequate” for whom? That's a red herring if I ever saw one
I ASKED if it did. I didn't SAY it didn't.
Big difference there, Geo. You are reacting emotionally here, which is an indication you aren't ready for philosophical discussions about this.

He seems to be saying that it needs further refinement and clarification (a new conceptual lens), which is exactly what has been happening with evolutionary theory for the past 150 years?
There are many published articles that can be browsed on Google scholar that relate to this.
Massimo has discussed a paradigm shift before on his podcast. it's an interesting philosophical discussion.
It's not something only found on creationists websites, as Geo is trying hard here to dismiss it as.

The technical aspects of micro evolution and how attempts to synthesize with macro evolution are highly specialized and beyond a layman like you, Geo. You are essentially resorting to "its not so.. ITS NOT SO!" arguments with little else to offer.
I on the other hand am open to the philosophical aspects of it.

Thanks
Last edited by ant on Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

The point which Chesterton will make is that evolution, whichever side you are on, is irrelevant to his discussion. So why mention it at all; because it is often brandished as a weapon against belief in God. So why make comments which betray a personal bias; because TEM is an answer to H.G. Wells' book and Chesterton's opinion on the subject would be the subject of speculation if he didn't share it. But his sharing his opinion does not make it relevant.

It is a mistake to get sidetracked on the irrelevant. It is a mistake because it will derail progress through TEM and you will fail to see that clear arguments have been made in opposition to many of the arguments I have encountered on BT and presented by other anti-Christians claiming that God does not exist. You may read through the entire book without experiencing the clarity which converted C.S. Lewis from an atheist. But you should be aware of which arguments you can continue to use with confidence and which you should beware of using.

I say "anti-Christian" and not atheist because some of the more strident voices I have experienced are hard to classify as purely atheist, ex: THE GREAT YEAR proponents, The Achyra S. crowd, the Gnostics, etc.

The question ANYTHING was a jab at Geo's tagline and was marginally questionable for a Christian but I am a militant apologeticist, at least I play one on THEATHEISTTURTLE.BLOGSPOT.COM. I may assume too much but I do respect Geo and hope we can trade back and forth without coming to blows.

A couple of evolution issues I have;
One cannot prove that defective genes are eliminated through selection as mutations are as a beneficial mutation may make a specimen more likely to be eliminated. For example, I just finished a course on VISUAL PERCEPTION through Duke University. The professor intoned in each section that we don't understand why we see, size, motion, color, contrast, etc., so poorly and incorrectly but it must be good because humans have survived. In fact, why we see color is a mystery as it takes additional processing and does not seem to help us survive.

The appeal to time as an explanation of evolution has no justification as far as I can see.

These are just two issues and I don't intend to continue a discussion of them on this thread or at this time. Perhaps, if the PROJECT launches we m at have a chance to visit them as well asothers.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

Stahrwe wrote:So why mention it at all; because it is often brandished as a weapon against belief in God.
And conversely, god is often brandished as a weapon against belief in evolution. In discussing GKC, the topic of evolution isn't irrelevant, because he makes it relevant by mentioning it.
One cannot prove that defective genes are eliminated through selection as mutations are as a beneficial mutation may make a specimen more likely to be eliminated.
There are countless examples of organisms with mutations that die because of those mutations. Exceptions to this do not bring these organisms back to life. It's proven, Stahrwe, in point blank fashion.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

"Belief in evolution"
?

Does a scientific theory (a string of facts woven together) need apologetics?
Facts just are. We do not believe in facts pro tem.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4898
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

It is still irrelevant, not because I say so but because that is the point Chesterton is making.

His point is that even if evolution is correct, it is not proof that there is no God.

My point and that of others: The attempt to use science to show that God does not exist is flawed on two fronts - one cannot proof something does not exist, two The idea of separate* magisterial entities is improperly violated by invoking evolution.

*it is not a perfect example but consider taking a book - weighing it, and measuring its dimensions, and on that basis declaring that it is not a musical score.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: GK Chesteron

Unread post

Stahrwe wrote:It is still irrelevant, not because I say so but because that is the point Chesterton is making.
No, the point he was trying to make was that humans are of a different type compared to lesser animals, so he's pushing an argument from ignorance. He doesn't see how evolution can account for people. There were other arguments as well. I can quote them individually if you wish.
My point and that of others: The attempt to use science to show that God does not exist is flawed on two fronts - one cannot proof something does not exist, two The idea of separate* magisterial entities is improperly violated by invoking evolution.
I can prove that a second sun does not exist behind our existing sun. Not absolute proof, but proof. You can prove some things do not exist if the definitions are contradictory to currently accepted proofs. If you define god as an entity that created man in his current image, and we know evolution is true, then that definition of god is proven false. A generic conceptualization of god may exist, but this particular conceptualization is false, it does not exist.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”