Or in exaggerating the difficulties encountered in that field of science. Since Wilber has invested much in his theory of an Eros in the Kosmos, he has a deep interest in not telling his readers how far biology has come.
Well, these points are obviously related: the more biology succeeds in explaining complex life forms or organs (such as eyes and wings) on a naturalistic basis, the less need there will be for such a Force if there ever has been one, as far as science is concerned. Wilber concurrs approvingly in his reply to Astin "you have hit the nail on the head", even as to the existence of "holes" in evolutionary theory: Why the embattled Creationists haven't seized on this one is beyond me, since it leaves a huge hole in evolutionary theory.Īgain, we know by now the rhetoric of "huge holes" in evolutionary theory that cry out for some complementary "theory" of an Eros in the Kosmos, that is supposedly the true explanation for the complexity of life's forms. (In fact, your metaphor "oops" is a perfect substitute term for randomness.) When they embrace the concept of "random" mutations, then, many geneticists think they are somehow explaining something, but in fact they are implicitly admitting that "we don't have a clue as to why this particular mutation happened at this particular time." It simply describes a situation where the observer/investigator is unable to find any causal antecedent for the event in question. Evolutionary biologists supposedly appeal to random changes as explanationary principle, which according to Astin only hides their ignorance of what's really going on: They challenge your example of the evolution of the bird wing, basically arguing that the 100 mutations DON'T have to occur all at once, claiming that each one occurs independently because EACH one is functional to survival! How probable is THIS? (Maybe the half wing helps them run faster?) Or do I somehow have their argument wrong?Īstin then elaborates on the issue of the nature of randomness, as used in statistics, which he has taught (as a social scientist, presumably), and evolution.
Wilber is ignoring his critics at his own cost. Higher Education Research Institute, who had checked out one of David Lane's essays on Integral World (" Wilber and the Misunderstanding of Evolution").Īn immediate side note: there is the obligatory confession "I never read this stuff and "I am sure you ignore it too", but "I was curious so I checked it out", and "what I found was utterly unconvincing" we know these rituals by now. In this posting Wilber relates about an email exchange he had with Alexander Astin, Founding Director of the A few days ago, on December 4th, 2007, a posting appeared on Wilber's own blog, titled " Some Criticisms of My Understanding of Evolution".
#Half wing heart archive
In my last posting, The Wilberian Evolution Report, I tried to archive the various statements on biological evolution Wilber had made over the years, and the comments these had generated. Could it be because Wilber needs evolutionary biology to fail on its own, that he selectively reads all this literature?
0 kommentar(er)
