"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
Paywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea what that sentence is talking about.
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatialPaywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea
omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” >> that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of
biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments
for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
what that sentence is talking about.
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
Paywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea what that sentence is talking about.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:10:22 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
Paywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea what that sentence is talking about.Do you think anyone knows what you are talking about?
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:10:22 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of biology in context.”"Paywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
what that sentence is talking about.
It's an odd paper. It analyses a short (4 pages, including his photo) article that Dobzhansky
wrote for the The American Biology Teacher. - and I'd guess while the title of the paper
is often cited also on TO) few would have read that paper. He addresses directly creationism
and attempts to teach it in schools - his paper sits side by side one by Gish
I read the first dew sections with increasing bewilderment, as Dilley seemed to read it as a scientific
paper that is trying to make a case for the correctness of the ToE, rather than a paper on pedagogy
how teachers can possibly address religiously motivated challenges in class.
In particular, Dilley seems to have two objections against Dobzhansky, one that he uses "God talk" at all,
and b) that he uses it badly. The "badly" here means in particular that he uses a "sectarian" approach,
i.e. his understanding of the godhead may be one exposed by some groups, but not all of them.
To which my answer would have been D'uh and D' uh again. The first: of course if you engage
with a religious position, you need to use their vocabulary. And in particular D tries to show that
the ways (some ) creationists account for the data that supports the ToE leads to a conception
of the deity that they may find untenable. Looks like a perfectly good strategy to me - you accept
some of the initial assumptions of the other side, and then show that one way or the other,
they conflict with beliefs they also hold, a form of internal critique.
Now, Dilley makes some good observations along the way that D's account of some
of his opponents is shaky at times. Some could reply to his charges with a "yes,
so what?" and bite the bullet on defensible theological grounds, others might say
"but this is not what we argue" Fair enough, a biologist writing about theology on
just five pages is unlikely to give a particularly scholarly account of theological details.
But that simply means that D's arguments are not quite as strong as he himself
makes them out in some places, and really only deal with very specific versions
of creationism.
Then, towards the very end, he explicitly concedes this point - arguably after annoying lots
of readers:
"A critic might claim that Dobzhansky draws on theology only because he attacks a view
already rife with divinity (creationism). Indeed, Dobzhansky’s article originally appeared
in The American Biology Teacher, a journal for science educators, opposite an article
by creationist Duane Gish (1973). In this particular context, little wonder that Dobzhansky
steps beyond science and uses theology in order to make his case."
He then tries to justify why he nonetheless did what he did, but little of that makes sense to
me - I just can't figure out what he is arguing. It seems to run along these lines: OK, fair enough
D. is using here God-talk merely to address creationists HERE. But in other places of his writing,
and other biologist to boot, do treat their critique of religion as positive evidence for the ToE.
And when they do this, it suffers from the same issues.
What he imputes there on D, and also on the long list of other biologist he mentioned (but without
citing where, in his view, they do this) is that they make a Bayesian argument: They (according to him)
evaluate the likelihood to observe some evidence under the God theory and under the
Evolution Theory, and from this infer the ToE is true. And that requires from them to have a
"God theory" - and because their God theory is (again as per Dilley) lacking, their reason for
accepting the ToE is also lacking.
I'd say he massively overstates the importance theology has in the working life of the average
research biologist. But finding "hidden theological assumptions" is very much his schtick, he also wrote
a paper on "Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species". Which is think was a better paper,
as an exercise in Darwin exegetics, though ultimately did not convince me neither.
Interesting also this short paragraph, directly after he sort-of-concedes that the entire project of the
paper may have been misguided:
"This clarification leads directly to a second point. Let us suppose for a moment that a thoughtful case
for evolution can be made sans theology, as the objection claims. (If it matters, I sympathize with this view.)
Nothing in my essay contests this claim, nor does my thesis devalue non-theological elements in the case for
evolution. Without harm to my argument, I can grant the de jure point that God-talk is not essential for the
justification of evolutionary theory."
So really, it boils down to "judged by these five pages, Dobzhansky was not a very good theologian". Would
have been more interesting had Dilley taken on Dobzhansky’s "The Biology of Ultimate Concern", which
is a massive 152 pages long. And for sure I'd say a lot to discuss/criticise there too, if one is deep
into the philosophy of Dobzhansky as a historical figure. Beyond that, the paper has nothing to offer.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:10:22 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:> > "The authors say that “we are at the
very beginning of the spatial omics revolution” and that “progress is
happening at breakneck speed” that will undoubtedly give scientists “a >> much deeper understanding of biology in context.”"> >> >
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/>
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden argumentsBut "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...> >> >
for evolution."> >> >
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940>
Paywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real
idea> what that sentence is talking about.
It's an odd paper. It analyses a short (4 pages, including his photo)
article that Dobzhanskywrote for the The American Biology Teacher. -
and I'd guess while the title of the paper
is often cited also on TO) few would have read that paper.
He addresses directly creationism
and attempts to teach it in schools - his paper sits side by side one by Gish
I read the first dew sections with increasing bewilderment, as Dilley
seemed to read it as a scientificpaper that is trying to make a case
for the correctness of the ToE, rather than a paper on pedagogy
how teachers can possibly address religiously motivated challenges in class.
In particular, Dilley seems to have two objections against Dobzhansky,
one that he uses "God talk" at all,and b) that he uses it badly. The
"badly" here means in particular that he uses a "sectarian" approach,
i.e. his understanding of the godhead may be one exposed by some
groups, but not all of them.
To which my answer would have been D'uh and D' uh again.
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatialPaywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea
omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed” >> that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of
biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments
for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940
what that sentence is talking about.
John Harshman wrote:
On 9/1/23 1:00 AM, Glenn wrote:
"The authors say that “we are at the very beginning of the spatialPaywalled, unfortunately. Based on the abstract we can have no real idea what that sentence is talking about.
omics revolution” and that “progress is happening at breakneck speed”
that will undoubtedly give scientists “a much deeper understanding of >> biology in context.”"
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/introducing-the-unknome-biologys-black-box/
But "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."...
"Many other prominent biologists also rely on theology-laden arguments
for evolution."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848613000940 >>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 422 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 196:58:19 |
| Calls: | 8,951 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,352 |
| Messages: | 5,992,477 |