LoneCycler on paradigms advancing one funeral at a time, etc

LC also has some food for thought for Friday fun:

LC, 18: >>From
the OP “Today’s dominant school of thought can become tomorrow’s dead
theory, often one funeral at a time.” This is true. Every time they find
another fossil they have to re-organize their phylogenetic trees. Some
trees have been changed so many times it’s almost like watching a game
of three card monte, trying to figure out where the Lady is going to be
located this time around.

“Next, we must recognize that without people, there is no science.” I
would add that without people there is also no scientism. We can
attempt to rationalize why creeping scientism is on the creep but this
is a waste of time. It’s human nature and like many other things it’s a
moral crime at the least and at the worst it leads to a slide into the
abyss.

People commit crimes against others for three reasons. And only three
reasons. For greed of money, sexual lust and the pursuit of power. From
murder to misdemeanors there are only these root causes.

Take Alexander Rosenberg cited in the OP. A 1960’s radical leftist
who has been ensconced in academia his entire adult life, I reckon his
motivation is once he found out economics was a complete crock he
focused on the philosophy of science as a means to stay employed. After
all, it’s not like Darwinism informs advancement of any science, it’s
just that it needs active priests like him to keep people in line. So I
put him down for greed of money, and idle thoughts of power over what
other people are allowed to think. Modern Unis like Duke are not in the
business of enlightenment but about raking in as much cash as possible
while ensuring anyone wanting to pursue a life of the mind shares the
same mindset of the Ubermenschen.

“So, we know that where we see reliable signs of design, we are
warranted to infer that as best explanation….” As an example of this I
was scouting a hunting lease this week and came across a figure 4
deadfall trap. This was evidence that some person was there actively
trapping small game on land I paid money to reserve for myself. If you
don’t know what a figure 4 deadfall is this 3:47 video will make you an
expert at identifying them in the wild. (Viewer discretion advised.)

If you were walking around the deep woods, the nearest road two miles
away, the nearest habitation more than 20, and came across something
like this what would you think about it? How did this thing get here?
Clearly, the A-Mats among us would declare “The wind, rain and lightning
caused wild fires that caused those three sticks to be cut at just the
right places and positioned so they could support that 10 pound rock
they’re holding up entirely by chance. It may have taken a decade or so
to evolve here.”

The figure 4 trap is pretty simple and can be constructed with found
objects and crude tools as the video shows. But they don’t assemble
themselves at random by chance. Would you agree that if you found one of
these in the woods it was made by a designer? That there was another
mind involved in constructing it?

Let’s examine the branches from the spruce tree that were used for
the three sticks that I found. A single cell from the spruce has only 12
chromosomes but more than 7 times the DNA of a human cell. Somehow,
we’re not entirely certain, the genetic material in the cells produce a
living organism that reproduces itself by production of male and female
gametes, transferring the male gametes to the female ovules by
pollination. This results in seeds that are dispersed by the wind, water
and animals, the process continuing for at least the past 136 million
years. A self-replicating living organism, established around the entire
planet, and nothing but random chance is involved?

Compare the complexity of the figure 4 deadfall trap, which you have
to admit, is not that complicated but never-the-less contains reliable
sign of design, against the complexity of the living cell and its nearly
unbelievable complexity. A living cell is much more complicated. But
we’re told by folks running the three card monte that if we think it did
not occur by random chance we must be some kind of snake handling bible
basher down from the hills.

I assure you, we’re not.>>

Again, food for thought. Is functionally specific complex organisation a good sign of design? Why/why not? Is “moral crime” fair comment? And so forth. END

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana