Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey  Chris likes to rubbish morphic resonance at least once a week, and I think he doesn't realise that theories often start off as tentative gropings after the truth. |
Morphic resonance deserves to be rubbished. It was barely tentative groping in 1981. It is still content free 27 years later. The field of developmental biology for which morphic resonance was supposedly the answer has continued to make rapid progress.
Quote:
|
I respect Rupert Sheldrake because he doesn't pepper his ideas with a large theoretical superstructure that is not justified by the facts, he concentrates on exposing facts that suggest ?, but then falls foul of Chris for not having a complete theory!
|
That is eerily reminiscent of somebody else. Guess who.
Quote:
|
?You?re asking me to play a game: ?Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.? ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it?s not ID?s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.?
|
I guess it's not Morphic Resonance's task to match the pathetic level of detail in physcial sciences.