Feeds:
Articles
Commentaires

Archive for the ‘jean staune’ Category

…doit céder le premier et déplacer le combat qui lui semble le plus convenable. Me disait Mamie Laitue, ma grand-mère maternelle.

Vincent Fleury en troll contaminant le fil sur l’Evolution biologique et les modérateurs de SLT qui n’ont pas voulu y mettre bon ordre (à mon sens) en effaçant son post (09-06-2007 à 16:35) sont des conditions inacceptables pour moi.

(suite…)

Publicités

Read Full Post »

De telle sorte, mon cher Jean, qu’au siècle prochain, votre livre sera parfaitement dépassé, alors que le mien restera d’une actualité pérenne…

C’est sur ces paroles d’ que se termine le débat publié à la page débat du Figaro 2/06/07, débat avec Jean Staune.

Désolé de devoir corriger Comte-Sponville. Au moins en ce qui concerne la partie « biologie » de The Book, parce qu’il est question de The Book. The Book était dépassé avant d’être publié. Pas la peine d’attendre un siècle pour se rendre compte des inanités que Jean a collectionné. Je me demande même si ça ne fait pas déjà un siècle qu’il est dépassé; va falloir vérifier.

, , , ,

Read Full Post »

créationniste

Dans le document intitulé « Introduction à la Biologie Non-Darwinienne« , publié aujourd’hui sur son site, , commet, entre autres, une erreur de vocabulaire.

L’erreur porte sur le mot créationniste. (suite…)

Read Full Post »

Je suis étais en train de relire le post de Guy Morant avec une amie et certains points appellent commentaire :

En particulier, il est de notoriété publique que l’Université Interdisciplinaire de Paris (UIP), créée et dirigée par Jean Staune, entretient des liens avec l’intelligent design, même si elle s’en est éloignée récemment. Il n’en faut pas plus, aux yeux des libres penseurs/brights/matérialistes, pour faire de Staune l’homme de paille du mouvement, obéissant servilement aux instructions du Discovery Institute. Il en résulterait que les membres de l’UIP sont, soit dupes, soit complices de cette démarche.

(suite…)

Read Full Post »

Sur megamachine, un post intitulé « Jean Staune, ou les habits neufs du dessein intelligent ? » a attiré mon attention. Grâce aux trackbacks 🙂

Aussitôt, ce livre a suscité des réactions d’une extrême violence dans certains blogs et forums, qui dénoncent principalement son traitement de la théorie de l’évolution.

Je ne pensais pas que ma réaction pourrait être qualifiée de violente, je me suis modéré autant que possible, en public. Je regrette que l’auteur de Mégamachine n’a pas trouvé aussi ce fil de discussion ou les non-sens du chapitre XI du livre de Staune ont commencé à être discutés, ou le dernier fil en date où je continuerai le travail, qui sera in fine assemblé sur Néo-Créationiste.

(suite…)

Read Full Post »

Hello Vasily,

I grow up under a military junta (1967-74, Greece) and I do understand the need for democratic speech.

But my question was about alternatives to a scientific theory, not about freedom of ideas. I hope you don’t consider them at the same level. Interpreting natural phenomena is not about opinions.

The Ryan/Cairn story is a quite interesting one. Neither fully explored the problem reported. Nor the problem was fully studied yet. I think it’s more valuable to spend time for full exploration of the events driving to the observed results rather then spending time to build alternatives.
What would be the specific point(s) where these results contradict ‘darwinism’ and make it necessary to build an alternative?

It’s quite easy to build hypothesis, say the they could explain things and that it would be interesting to test them, and conclude that it will be quite difficult to build tests that would be able to in/validate them.

I will follow you on the consideration that the way science is financed today leads to a lot of nonsense and that the degree of specialization tends to limit the way research is performed.
‘Questioning expert’s « points of view »‘ is my middle name, including those of McFadden (an easy example for me to showcase) and the absence of such a critical approach from Jean is the very first thing I « charge » him.
You said that you didn’t explored the matter further than the « expert’s opinion » concerning this particular point.
Please, consider this particular case as an illustration that I really do not easily accept ‘ex cathedra’ assertions if they aren’t thoroughly counter-expertised. And that I’m against any kind of servility toward « experts ». I understand that they may be mistaken even in there field of expertise and his is understandable. Mistakes happen.

But on the other hand, lousy interpretations of science as the ones Jean makes in his book are much more toxic. He present himself as a non specialist based on what specialist said (including opinions presented as facts, of assertions that are manifestly false) and tries to support an ideology. That’s the worst behavior to be expected from one stating that he done a « scientific enquiry » during a period of 20 years and presents the state of the art and conclusions.

I understand that you already read the chapter XI (as Jean says that you didn’t had anything to object to the content). If you have time to spend over this, give it a second read, being critical and not relying on « experts opinions », neither at Jean’s « scientific enquiry » results. I’m curious to know which of the criticisms against « darwinism » you would support.

Concerning your essay I have a single observation. You are talking about « stability », biological stability. I never encountered such a thing. I rather spended a lot of time and efforts fighting biological instability and variation.
You could improve the quality of your text by explicitly defining what you mean by stability and what the limits of your definition are.

Bests regards,

Antoine

Read Full Post »

Hello Vasily,

I wouldn’t say that I’m discussing with Jean or that I’m getting ‘more’ technical. I just point to the insufficiencies of his approach which I consider dishonest. His claims of a scientific enquiry (subtitle of his book) is an usurpation of the term « scientific », at least about matters connected with biology.

Concerning multi-resistant bacteria his report is incomplete. Certainly McFadden could be considered as an expert, but his approach doesn’t stand in front of a few minutes datamining from what Jean likes to call a Modest Biologist [that’s me :-)]

I can easily understand your point of view, relying on McFadden’s opinion while reading the manuscript of Jean, not Jean’s naiveté.

On the other hand, Jean present you as an authority validating his point of view. Not the best reference for you.

By personal experience, a lot of molecularists consider Darwinism quite critically and explain their observations with(in) it; this doesn’t mean that they spend their time trying to challenge it, but rather that they build working hypothesis which keep it under constant testing conditions. As far as I know it stands.

Jean’s examples are (all of them, chapter XI) out of focus and incomplete, presented in a schema (intentionally ?) creating a logical illusion. It may be great fun for biologists but dangerous for general public.

The main point of Jean have nothing to do, I understand, with darwinism, biology or science in general, but rather with spirituality and ‘means to make it more credible (without proving it)’. Undirected evolution is his nightmare and he would ‘take’ anything that may give the slightest hint (however false it could be) that evolution is directed by some god.

Are there scientific alternatives to darwinism? Why there should be alternatives? One have to have in hand something unexplainable, not just unexplained, by a model to seek for a new one.

I have a long train trip later in the day, I’ll read « Erwin Schroedinger, Francis Crick and epigenetic stability » and if I find it inspiring I’ll come back to you with questions and/or comments.

Best regards,

OC

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »