Article ~ Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

A little biased here, I like the panspermia mindset.

It is very parsimonious. We don't want to invoke a creator too heavily, especially if we think that creator is benevolent. 

I tend to think that panspermia, while possible, only pushes back the ultimate question. 

I don't think that anyone here is invoking the anthropomorphic deity as creator. We are still agreed that evolution is happening (while disagreeing on the mechanisms). An omniscient designer would kinda make evolution pointless, no?

Are they? I don’t see how they could be all that controversial given that they are participating in the field. I realize they are presented by the ID folk as though they are. I suspect there’s a big difference between how ‘controversial’ they are regarded as in comparison to IDers and creationists, (as Paul mentioned as well).

Controversy is SOP in science, so there’s no need to pretend that scientists are expected to be in lock step on everything.

In an article I linked to on another thread, Kevin Laland certainly seems to think that the attacks on proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis go beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate:

Why, then, are traditionally minded evolutionary biologists complaining about the misguided evolutionary radicals that lobby for paradigm shift? 
...
What’s more surprising is how commonly conservative-minded biologists play the ‘We’re under attack!’ card against their fellow evolutionists. Portraying intellectual opponents as extremist, and telling people that they are being attacked, are age-old rhetorical tricks to win debate or allegiance.
I had always associated such games with politics, not science, but now realise I was naive. Some of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans I have witnessed, seemingly designed to prevent new ideas from spreading by fair means or foul, have truly shocked me, and are out of kilter with practice in other fields that I know. Scientists, too, have careers and legacies at stake, as well as struggles for funding, power and influence. I worry that the traditionalists’ rhetoric is backfiring, creating confusion and inadvertently fuelling creationism by exaggerating division.
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-i...ary-theory

In an article I linked to on another thread, Kevin Laland certainly seems to think that the attacks on proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis go beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate:

Why, then, are traditionally minded evolutionary biologists complaining about the misguided evolutionary radicals that lobby for paradigm shift? 
...
What’s more surprising is how commonly conservative-minded biologists play the ‘We’re under attack!’ card against their fellow evolutionists. Portraying intellectual opponents as extremist, and telling people that they are being attacked, are age-old rhetorical tricks to win debate or allegiance.
I had always associated such games with politics, not science, but now realise I was naive. Some of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans I have witnessed, seemingly designed to prevent new ideas from spreading by fair means or foul, have truly shocked me, and are out of kilter with practice in other fields that I know. Scientists, too, have careers and legacies at stake, as well as struggles for funding, power and influence. I worry that the traditionalists’ rhetoric is backfiring, creating confusion and inadvertently fuelling creationism by exaggerating division.
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-i...ary-theory

I suspect the entire article needs to be read to give context to that particular paragraph. Otherwise, it illustrates what I (and Paul) mentioned earlier - a willingness to use selected quotes like this to fuel the pretense that there is any sort of equivalence between minor deviations from the usual level of controversy in science and the controversy surrounding ID and creationism.    

Linda

I suspect the entire article needs to be read to give context to that particular paragraph. Otherwise, it illustrates what I (and Paul) mentioned earlier - a willingness to use selected quotes like this to fuel the pretense that there is any sort of equivalence between minor deviations from the usual level of controversy in science and the controversy surrounding ID and creationism.    

No, I said nothing about equivalence with intelligent design or creationism. What I wrote - in response to your suggestion about controversy being normal in science - was: "Kevin Laland certainly seems to think that the attacks on proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis go beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate."

By the way, if you're trying to provoke me with the stuff about "selected quotes" and "fuelling the pretence", you're wasting your time.

No, I said nothing about equivalence with intelligent design or creationism. What I wrote - in response to your suggestion about controversy being normal in science - was: "Kevin Laland certainly seems to think that the attacks on proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis go beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate."

 
What was "beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate" in Kevin Laland's article, was the response (by some) to the idea of whether it is useful to reframe evolutionary biology to more explicitly include the various mechanisms beyond "natural selection" and "random mutation" which are now part of the field or becoming so.

What I was responding to was Kamarling's suggestion that the inclusion of those mechanisms, which prompted this reframing, was controversial (as controversial as ID or creationism). But even Laland confirms that the inclusion of those mechanisms are within the bounds of normal scientific debate. Which is why the suggestion has been made by some evolutionary biologists to go ahead and make their inclusion explicit, and why the response from some critics to this suggestion seems to be over-the-top. It wouldn't otherwise be all that controversial except for this:

"creationists and advocates of ‘intelligent design’ also feed this impression [revolution], with propaganda that exaggerates differences of opinion among evolutionists and gives a false impression that the field of evolutionary biology is in turmoil."

I see parallels in other area where a particular scientific field comes under attack from those with a socio/political agenda. For example, in most cases, the decision over whether to bother including a spurious finding in a research report is boringly non-controversial. But when it involves the anti-vaccine movement, it becomes highly controversial even among those within the field, over the concern that it will be wildly misrepresented by those with an anti-vaccine agenda.

Linda

What was "beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate" in Kevin Laland's article, was the response (by some) to the idea of whether it is useful to reframe evolutionary biology to more explicitly include the various mechanisms beyond "natural selection" and "random mutation" which are now part of the field or becoming so.

Yes. He complained that the reaction to these ideas from some conservative-minded biologists was beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate. That was my point.

Yes. He complained that the reaction to these ideas from some conservative-minded biologists was beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate. That was my point.

Yes. But, I didn't refer to whether the reaction to "a broader characterization of evolutionary theory" from some conservative-minded biologists was beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate. That was my point. 

Linda

Yes. But, I didn't refer to whether the reaction to "a broader characterization of evolutionary theory" from some conservative-minded biologists was beyond the bounds of normal scientific debate. That was my point. 

Your point was that you didn't refer to something? 

Your point was that you didn't refer to something? 

Yes. You were counteracting a point that I never made in the first place. I made some other point, which was actually confirmed by Laland's article.

EES evolutionary biologists aren't overly controversial because the ideas they refer to - epigenetics, evo-devo, developmental bias, etc. are overly controversial (which Laland confirmed). They're overly controversial because they disagree over whether the current characterization of evolutionary theory adequately captures those ideas or whether it needs a broader characterization.

My response to Kamarling, referred to the former - whether it would be regarded as overly controversial for a biologist to bring up newer ideas (e.g. epigenetics, evo-devo, etc.), since that is what we had been talking about (newer ideas or criticisms as to mechanisms wrt abiogenesis). Your choice of Laland quote referred to the latter - attacks on whether evolutionary theory needs a broader characterization. 

Linda

Yes. You were counteracting a point that I never made in the first place. I made some other point, which was actually confirmed by Laland's article.

Well, no doubt those who are interested can read the article and decide for themselves whether there is any truth in what you say.