Space | Evolution | Physics | Social Sciences | Natural Sciences | DNA | Psychology | Biotech | Medicine | Anthropology | Astronomy

Elliott Sober: Darwin & Intelligent Design

More videos from this partner:

16
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 18 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
DamnUnicorn Avatar
DamnUnicorn
Posted: 06.05.11, 02:29 AM
Darwin went to a Christian boarding school, and later in life went to Cambridge with the idea of becoming a clergyman. I'm not really sure how much more educated he could have become about on that particular subject.
mitchelkennedy Avatar
mitchelkennedy
Posted: 06.01.11, 01:50 AM
The Caterpillar was an example of "Evil". Thousands of kids die every day of starvation. Are they stupid to because they dont know how to prevent it? Yes, we dont want your opinion, just evidence.
Lary9 Avatar
Lary9
Posted: 03.09.11, 07:58 AM
I can't believe that he missed the American girl's question twice! He didn't 'get' the question. I think she was asking "how would we know the difference between non-intelligent signals and inelligent signals received from space?" In other words, how would they differ... how would we recognize them as distinct? I think the answer is...we probably wouldn't... not without correspondence. You know, talking back and forth...but that's going to be impossible with the potential of cosmic distances for data communication. One way analysis might yield some probabilities but I tend to think they must look almost the same. It would have to be mathematical but still that requires a primer... and just how to Tx/Rx back and forth...big problem.
lux113 Avatar
lux113
Posted: 02.18.11, 04:25 PM
lareth... if I'm to understand you.. you are using the caterpillar's short life to show God is cruel? Really? So... you are proposing that a world with both good and evil should contain caterpillars that live eternally, because they can't choose good or evil? What a strange argument. A caterpillar is, as you said, a stupid organism - and I'm sure it, in it's own small way, enjoys it's short life span. The fact that it dies, or only lives shortly, is hardly an argument for or against anything.
code933k Avatar
code933k
Posted: 11.27.10, 11:32 PM
Time and extension are not by my side at this very moment. Sad. He is older than I am. But If he were my student I'd show lots and lots of logical errors in his presentation. His point in randomness and guided evolution is complete nonsense (in the way of creationists) which makes me wonder if he has paid attention to Dawkins comments on the subject... There is not RANDOM in ADAPTATION. There's also enough proof on matter self-organization to start rambling about a "specific God" with capital Judeo-Christian characters starting the process of evolution in nature. This kind of flawed logic is kind of terrifying in an academic environment, I think. I have to agree with those three matters pointed out by "Dogma". This thing of naming "evil" and "unnecessary evil" so easily is sign of very bad reasoning.
mlennon Avatar
mlennon
Posted: 09.08.10, 10:23 AM
Mr. Sober should really come up with a different term for his 'theistic evolution', as what he describes is not evolution whatsoever. His reconciliationist view may well be correct, though there isn't a scintilla of evidence supporting it, but to describe this as evolution is simply erroneous.
naturalpreservation Avatar
naturalpreservation
Posted: 09.02.10, 02:27 PM
Eelkonio, You write about science as if it remains aloof from people and/or human decision-making. Scientific investigation reflects human questions, and these questions ebb and flow over time as does science. The direction of science is not something wholly integral to scientific enquiry, it is as well a socially constructed path and that means taking views from people, some of whom may get moral guidance from religion, and some not. This idea that science is a completely objective enterprise quite detached from politics however is a lasting myth. Each and every day in law courts around the world different scientists offer different interpretations for the prosection and for the defence, so the idea that science in anyway offers a uniformity beyond debate is another myth. For sure science is a method that enables the realisation of deeper truths but it is one of several modes of knowledge and science has its weaknesses like other forms of knowledge generation. You sound evangelical about science and while I think science as a humanly constructed method you could also do well to dwell on the idea that: 1. science is one of trillions of artifacts, products, processes and practices that humans have created and designed. Dawkins and Dennett freely lecture that humans are the only/first intelligent designers on the tree of life. Science, art, music, technology, dance, writing, etc are all manifestations of this human dimension of culture. 2. Science can be considered a material reverance of God's creation. Don't forget that Einstein referred to "the cosmic religious feeling" (his words not mine) and this takes science as the material reverance of the Universe (and for people of faith, this would be God's creation). For my own part I find science and religion quite different, but not detached. I certainly don't find anything inherent in science that undermines religion and to assert there is shows a shallow reading of not just science, but religion, anthropology, and culture as a system of motion quite different (again, not detached) from nature. I am against intelligent design because that approach finds ignorance in God and I'm firmly with Kenneth R. Miller in how he debunks intelligent design, and yet he is a person of faith, a Professor of Biology of such standing that he was the lead witness for the plaintiff in the Kitzmiller trial on evolution/intelligent design. Not a witness but the lead witness on evolution at this high profile trial. So the idea that religion and science are different in how they try to explain and make sense of the world around us is something I adhere to, but they are not detached with their obvious common denominator humankind. This means they are both going to be characterised by politics, bias, power relations, dogma, stubbornness and insecurity. I don't believe in accommodationism for the blind sake of consilience but because I think it's the truth.
Antonio Pereira Coutinho Avatar
Antonio Pereira Coutinho
Posted: 08.14.10, 05:18 PM
This Gods issue makes in fact a lot of people loose time with non-core issues. We have enough evidence in the real VISIBLE World that evolution played and is playing a role, but not all existing beings are a result of that. Then ON TOP of these two or three theoretical approaches, we have to create space for the fact that we are not considering the INVISIBLE beings around us, which have not been taken into account by Darwinn or other so called Pros, and which maybe are playing an important role in our evolution. These approaches reffered by Elliot didnt exist in old times, before Christianity and Allah. Newton came, Darwing came, and now we have to move forward. Gravity affect us, but doesnt affect other beings around us. Of course I am NOT reffering to birds. Elliot Sober is a great speaker, and is not a dogmatic guy, I could say he is a flexible guyb and with good reasoning. But what if he would be faced with one almost invisible blue jellyfish colored snake and two small aliens? He would be in shock of course, and then he would have to go back to basics and reverse the engineering of his thoughts. Yes? In fact, being faced with gravity defying and almost invisible beings would be an hard issue to be faced with. Who created the earth and the universe should be not the issue right now. The issue is putting forces to understand our EARTH and from there jump into the Universe. For example the simple subjects known by all of us such as sea evaporation, high and low pressures, and cloud formation are not at all, easy matters to be left out of the current discussions. Remember and keep yourselfs alert. An OWL can see 100 times better than us in the night time. We cant.. And can a dog can be barking to noWhere? during the night time without a reason? Of course the dogs bark during night time ..because they have seen something. Thank you for your time.
Adam Keele Avatar
Adam Keele
Posted: 08.04.10, 11:52 PM
It's amusing seeing people try to convince others that guy is correct or not, or that their beliefs are better than another. The concept of good and evil was created by us. Too many people forget we use to have a lot of time on our hands to dream up all sorts of things. Take all the thousands of religions. All the popular ones that have stood the test of time generally have thousands of years of trail and error, and story development to stand up against any opposition. I know if I could come up with a way to get people be nicer to each other, I'd sure try to propagate it. And if I could explain some of the mysteries of the world at the same time, well even better. Sounds like a best seller to me....
MagnaMater2 Avatar
MagnaMater2
Posted: 08.04.10, 09:27 AM
I'm still a bit surprised that there are humans who value nature in categories of good and evil. Dogma's No2 hits the point with calling it primitve anthropomorphizing. Nature has no morals as such. It knows usefulness or or uselessness. A survival strategy functions well for an individual and its group, or it doesn't, if a behaviour doesn't work on long terms, it's wrong and dies out.
Advertisement

Advertisement
FORA.tv ticker
FORA.tv ticker