"Abednego" has written a reponse to Avalos' "review" of The Privileged Planet. Read it yourself to see why the scare-quotes are justified.
From The Secular Web (a.k.a. "Infidels"), "An Atheist Defends the Design Argument", by Toby Wardman. The article is a couple of years old, and thus doesn't adress the Avalos spectacle. Still, it does a formidable job at quickly and clearly adressing some of the most common arguments against the fine-tuning thesis.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
September 29th, 2005 at 10:18 am
[...] Bash Gonzalez! Update: At telicthoughts.com Krauze presented a related article called: Fine writings about fine-tuning. 2 Comments » Pingback [...]
Pingback by Teleological Blog » The Good Report of Guillermo Gonzalez, Author of The Privileged Planet — September 29, 2005 @ 10:18 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:29 pm
OK wait.
Did he even attempt to refute ANY arguments with REAL data?
I think its time someone sent a signed petition to ISU complaining of Avalos' lies, misconceptions and overall low-life attitude.
I liked this part:
"Given that mathematical fact, why do advocates of ID think that human beings are the ultimate "purpose" of the Designer?
TPP states the purpose was for scientific discovery. And the only correlation is that humans are capable of doing that.
And why can't human beings be only an intermediary step in some conceivably longer causal sequence?"
I can't speak for anyone but myownself, but I hope we are (an intermediary step). I also hope that "God" isn't the Christian "God" (or the Muslim "Allah") our their depiction is off by a good magnitude.
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Joe,
I second the motion. But I am confused. I went to that essay you linked to, and there you called yourself John Paul and listed your religion as Muslim. I also asked you once, why do you find the existence of God obvious?
Comment by onething — October 2, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:39 am
onething:
I second the motion. But I am confused. I went to that essay you linked to, and there you called yourself John Paul and listed your religion as Muslim. I also asked you once, why do you find the existence of God obvious?
"John Paul" is derived from John Lennon / Paul McCartney.
"Muslim" means a "belief in one God" and not necessarily a follower of Islam (at least that bis what the Saudi clerics told me when I was over there).
After for the existence of God being "obvious", perhaps I mis-spoke. It doesn't have to be "God", I should have said the existence of a "designer" is obvious. But anyway:
"˜The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator'. Louis Pasteur from Louis Pasteur"”Founder of Modern Medicine.
Me too. I see an amazing variety of symbiotic relationships- One big example is plants take in CO2 and expel O2. Animals take in O2 and expel CO2. Now we have the data from the cosmos as presented in The Privileged Planet. From what I have seen and read the only defense against that data is to attack the people presenting it, and/ or how they presented it. That is a sure sign that the data is good so let's attack the people presenting it so that data will be ignored- tactic.
Comment by Joe G — October 3, 2005 @ 8:39 am