Quote:

Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

That's one reason I am excited to read it.

---

Because it confirms your bias against evolution?

---

zouden said:

Quote:

Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light.

---

Sure they can. But why would you posit something that's been proven wrong?

---

johnm214 said:

Yes, science is limited to what we observe.

---

Quote:

On a related note, I never understood why it can't be more accepted that both ID and evolution could be possible. Why could we have not simply been created to evolve?

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

zouden said:

Quote:

Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or that ether carries light.

---

Sure they can. But why would you posit something that's been proven wrong?

---

That quote comes from a Wiki article.  I was posting a reference.  Evidently, you disagree with Kuhn.

---

Quote:

Next comes Charles Darwin, father of evolutionary theory and a real neurotic if ever there was one.  Not that we should be surprised since,  coming as he did from the comfortable rich upper-middle classes, in proposing a theory of common origins Darwin was threatening the very foundations and stability of the social hierarchy which supported and nourished him.  Little wonder that reaction to On the Origin of Species was purely political and that those who really reveled in its message were the rank atheists.  Fortunately, whatever his failings as a man of science--and they were legion--in other respects Darwin was a man of resource, and so by the time that he published his work on our own species (The Descent of Man) the beast had been tamed.

---

Don't feel bad, atheistic materialists, before he castigates Darwin he had his way with Newton.  The point being that scientists are just men and men make mistakes.  His focus was the gravity of the mistakes.  And this, coming from an evolutionist.  For that is exactly what Michael Ruse is.

I get the feeling this book is going to be quite the ride. 

Quote:

In 44 chapters with copious notes and massive details, Darwin scholars Desmond and Moore give a rich portrait of the gentleman naturalist and scientific theorist from a sociocultural framework emphasizing Whig-Tory conflicts and Lyellian-Malthusian speculations.

The authors reveal that Darwin was particularly influenced by the evolutionary ideas of zoologist Robert Grant; the implications of fossil Argentine megatheriums, speciated Galapagos mockingbirds, and the incredible varieties of barnacles; as well as experimentation with cultivated plants and animals. Despite a doting wife, loyal friends, and belated honors (though he was never knighted), Darwin's life was filled with illness, disappointment, and tragedy (especially the death of daughter Annie at age ten). This impressive volume makes clear that Darwin suffered from a lifelong schizoid struggle between his own materialist science and a late-Victorian theology. For a deeper examination of Darwin's sickness, read John Bowlby's Charles Darwin ( LJ 3/1/91) and Ralph Colp's To Be an Invalid ( LJ 6/1/77). Darwin's final written thoughts on religion are found in Nora Barlow's indispensable The Autobiography of Charles Darwin (1959). Essential reading for evolutionists, Desmond and Moore's monumental work is highly recommended for all academic libraries. BOMC, History Book Club, and Quality Paperback Book Club alternate selections.

---