We have many ‘natural’ views of motion (shared for example) Galileo appealed to our common or ‘natural’ understanding of motion aboard a ship and on a smoothly moving carriage when arguing for the movement of the earth. It wasn’t that one view of motion was natural and the other ‘unnatural’ – it was that one understanding/interpretation had become the dominate paradigm that all observations about the sun/earth were interpreted though (I think).

Also, I don’t see how it is ‘natural’ to assume that all real motion is noticed (if that’s what you meant)? I think it was common knowledge that shared motion was not always felt/seen – or could go unnoticed in some situations.

If I’m right so far (?) it seems Pinker is making two mistakes (with respect to this issue)

1) Assuming the motion of the sun around the earth is a ‘natural’ way to think. Thinking logically/morally would be natural and probably design fits, too. not the sun around the earth tho, i don’t think (still)

2) That the (what he calls) ‘natural’ thinking about motion of the sun/earth was supplanted by something else/other than ‘natural’.

Both views of motion are very much ‘natural’ (it seems to me) it was just that one view/understanding had been the dominate paradigm through which people interpreted motion – when it came to the sun/earth.

It seems more like a historical assumption rather than a ‘natural’ one – to me.

You are confusing a class with an instance.

Evolution predicts that some unnecessary traits (or “unnecessary features that would have been useful to ancestors”/whatever you want to call such things) will exist. It doesn’t predict which ones.

The fact that any exist, is evidence for evolution.

If absolutely none existed, it would have been evidence for ID.

Yes, its not conclusive evidence, since ID can be expanded to include less design and more evolution… but it is evidence.

-TH

[Thanks, Tracy. Yes, I was a bit sloppy. I've edited the relevant passage. Your comment preserves the original. --WmAD]

How many fingers am I holding up?

Finally, I’m happy to report that my own retina seem to be
functioning pretty well, but maybe that’s just a
“naïve impression” that he would be willing to help me
overcome.

The following is my letter to the editor @ Time.

I was saddened to read in “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?,” that Harvard Psychologist Steven Pinker’s retina have been “installed backward.” In spite of this tragedy, I’m encouraged by his–er, vision, and am looking forward to the issue of Time which describes how Dr. Pinker’s own retina are to be corrected and “installed forward.” Please make sure and include all the specifics showing how his design improves upon the “bungled” one he has to live with today.

Finally, I’m happy to report that my own retina seem to be functioning pretty well, but maybe that’s just a “naïve impression” that he would be willing to help me overcome.

Well, sure, science shows that breeding can select for things we desire in crops. But only a perverse mind somehow translates that into a justification for eugenics.

Eugenics may suggest a “method” for purging deleterious alleles from the species (though the implementation of eugenics in the early days was so informed by ignorance, it would have failed in that).

However, I don’t see how crop breedings suggests that eugenics IS A GOOD IDEA. Especially for creating a peaceful society – which is what I think we all want.

Animal husbandry and breeding produces livestock with desireable heritable traits. Evolution informs us that breeding cattle is no different in principle (moral considerations aside) than breeding humans. Relative morals are a hallmark of non-theistic belief systems. Relatively speaking, the good for the many outweigh the good for the few.

Combine all the above and you get justification for eugenics – selective breeding of humans to promote “good” traits and eliminate “bad” traits.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?