Re: Berlinski--A Scientific Scandal Part I From Commentary

I think it might be premature to think that the
"younger generation" can be bamboozled with the
zealotry of any group in the scientific comunity. The
group seeks to preserve and protect its own is nothing
new. I myself constantly recieve pleasure from the
parallels between religious and theoretic devotees.
Back to my original comment...Im a 25 year old who
likes to think for himself...novel that. One of the
characteristics common to my peers is that we rarely
take what is handed to us.

Michael Doherty

--- Nemonemini@aol.com wrote:
> That is hardly an answer. What is the basis of this
> statement, left 
> materialism, or suspicion of the evil works of
> Commentary Mag? Or both? 
> 
> The left had best get cracking with evolutionary
> theories and catch up with 
> Marx's first impressions of Darwin, before his
> second thoughts caught up with 
> his first impressions. His first impressions?  Bah,
> English ideology.... Ad 
> nauseam in the Darwin debate. The point is that
> Engels' infatuation with 
> Darwin, not only he, has ill served the left. The
> right knows perfectly well 
> this is a bogus theory. 
> 
> The issue in Berlinski's essay is something that I
> have also been concerned 
> about. The sawdust foundations of theory in the
> Darwin game. I admire much of 
> Darwinism, but this theory is defended in defensible
> ways that confuse whole 
> generations of students, and a good mathematician
> like Berlinski who was 
> honest enough to not endorse the design arguments
> gets angry at the poppycock 
> promoted in the name of sophisticated models by the
> brain dead science types 
> who constantly preen their figures, aren't we smart?
> 
> 
> In any case the issue of genetic algorithms is
> something that shows great 
> promise, but their use has already been hashed over
> with the usual Darwin 
> defense routines. And the temptation is to confuse
> the mathematically 
> confused with smoke and mirrors. 
> Look at S. Kauffman, he was also honest enough to
> make his model research 
> first suggest the limits of Darwinism. Cf. At Home
> in the Universe. 
> 
> So, on that basis, it should not be so remarkable to
> object to or be able to 
> criticize speculative hypotheses. 
>  In any case, the basic point is that evolution has
> so far not explained the 
> emergence of the eye in selectionist terms. If one
> looks at some the work in 
> developmental genetics one will find tacit yielding
> on this point, or at 
> least embarrassed silence as the field moves to
> produce new forms of 
> explanation. 
> 
> I think Berlinski's essay stands. And a generation
> of Dawkins' fanatics 
> should have long since been served notice. But the
> control of the paradigm is 
> so great noone can get through to the younger
> generation, which is all too 
> obviously being chauffered with the exoteric version
> to aggressively defend 
> Darwin from ignorance. 
> 
> If you think the essay by Berlinski to be drivel, at
> least keep in mind that 
> noone is obliged on scientific terms to agree. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Landon
> Website for
> World History and the Eonic Effect
> http://eonix.8m.com
> Blogzone
> http://www.xanga.com/nemonemini
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com