Philosophy Now Forum

What is important for us as philosophers is to avoid arguments like; We cannot imagine a way something as complex as a mitochondrian could develop other than by Darwinian evolution. Here's a way it could develop other than by Darwinian evolution Nonsense! We've already ruled that out using argument...

Any old story will do, so long as it isn't The Wrong Story?! That looks like very bad science, and I hope no one is actually working to that agenda. I'm not sure any old story will do mick. It's just that we need to know how organic complex forms evolved from simple inorganic molecules. Just becaus...

But all this aside, we've unwittingly started trying to explain evolution scientifically rather than philosophically.

The scientific objections are non-theological objections which is what I thought we were after. Are you interested in purely philosophical objections?

But it is surely implicit within any theory of evolution that there must be some kind of primordial organism(s) from which everything evolved and developed. I I could be contradicted on this point then I am already making gains in the philosophy of the subject! I think that modern evolutionary theo...

I think evolutionary theory has to explain the evolution of cellular components just as much as it has to explain the evolution of more obvious phenotypic traits (like a giraffe's neck). So it does count as an objection in my view, albeit not a very good one.

There is a line of argument in Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box that complex cellular components like mitochondria could not have evolved by natural selection. It's basically a cellular version of the argument that says that eyes could not have evolved by natural selection. It has been roundly...

Sorry mick, I was being a bit sloppy there. What I mean is that you will find all the philosophical, scientific and theological objections in any half-decent creationist critique of evolutionary theory. Of course, you are right that this doesn't make such objections necessarily theological, rather t...

I like the idea behind this thread but I'm afraid all of the 'non-theological' objections to evolutionary theory have already been co-opted by the creationist lobby. They have become theological objections through this association.

I've tended to avoid Ayn Rand due to the rather negative portrayal of her views on childcare in The Simpsons!

If it is not FUN, then it is not PHILOSOPHY.

Not sure about this RachelAnn. Have you tried reading Kant?

I am also reading The Undercover Economist and Knowledge and its Place in Nature by Hilary Kornblith.

Barbara,

Truth = Insight * Evidence / Theory. I think from what you are saying you might agree. Yes?

I wouldn't put too much faith in research that is publsihed secretly. It sounds like a cult!

Welcome. which secret weekly paper are you reading?

Is "Rortabend" a combination of Rorty and Feyerabend?

Well spotted Rick. It is the name that Larry Laudan gives to the relativist in Science and Relativism.