Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I told you: it's because many of the critiques of Darwinism they provide are really very astute, regardless of their motivation. If you prefer to believe in the fairy tales, that's your prerogative, but seeing as you admit you don't have much expertise in evaluating some of the IDers papers because you lack the education, I don't see how you can evince that their work is suspect. Even were you to bother to read it, how would you possibly know? I stress you because all your information comes from ideologues. They present it in a form you can understand, you swallow it as gospel, and then regurgitate it ex cathedra.

The fairy tale is the belief is homo sapien sapien above all other species of animal and other extinct species of humans are the crowing glory of Creation. Which is the overall intention of this thread to prove by some.

I can see people like you for what they are: ignorant promulgators of other people's views -- which wouldn't be too bad if those other people knew what the heck they were talking about. They're sheep being led by shepherds in precisely the direction they want them to go because it makes them feel self-important, allows them to  bask in borrowed authority. But ignoramuses have no authority. They're just a little eegits who don't know arse from elbow.

What BS. Believe it or not evolutionary biologist whom aren't creationists or ID'ers do debate the details of TOE, but what they all agree upon is species do evolve (without presupposing a supernatural cause)
We can all assume you've included yourself and every member on this forum correct? People rely upon experts as I'm certain you do, this is unless you're an expert in every subject.

How do you distinguish between something dressed up to sound sciency, and the real thing?

The only possible answer I can think of is to examine the arguments themselves!

David

That can be hard to do if one isn't well read or an expert on the subject. And most people are neither. When one is neither well read or expert then we rely upon the experts with the assumption of trust that the work done by pure scientists has no ulterior motive other than to gain knowledge. That absolutely cannot be said for Creationists or ID'ers. Their agenda here in the US is to put their version of God back into society in general and the science classroom and politics specifically.

Davidb: The only possible answer I can think of is to examine the arguments themselves!

It's fine to examine the argument just be sure you understand what's being argued.
In the Discovery Institutes own words. Note they used the word convictions.
Definition- a strong persuasion or belief

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant (consistent) with Christian and theistic convictions." -- Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID2.cfm

A brief summary of Intelligent design.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/adam_beresfor...design.pdf

A more in-depth over view. Page 11 is most important.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/


A timeline of creationism and ID. It may be unknown, but ID was not made from whole cloth it has it's roots in creationism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Timeline_o...ent_design

I agree with a lot of what you say, but then ask myself why the powers that be here relegate the potentially paradigm-busting evidence of there being no link between HIV and AIDS to a lonely backwater where hopefully no one will see it.

Tell me why that isn't hypocrisy. On second thoughts, don't bother. This message will itself probably be moved to a lonely backwater lest it offend precious sensibilities.

As someone with considerable knowledge and experience in the subject, the answer is that the idea has been demonstrated to be wholly without merit, and that is why it has been relegated to a lonely backwater.

But the idea that you and other people without expertise have somehow stumbled on a truth which thousands of people with expertise don't see, intrigues me. Has that ever worked?

I have started new thread in which to ask for examples of when this has worked here:

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-551.html

Linda

That can be hard to do if one isn't well read or an expert on the subject. And most people are neither. When one is neither well read or expert then we rely upon the experts with the assumption of trust that the work done by pure scientists has no ulterior motive other than to gain knowledge. That absolutely cannot be said for Creationists or ID'ers. Their agenda here in the US is to put their version of God back into society in general and the science classroom and politics specifically.

It's fine to examine the argument just be sure you understand what's being argued.

OK - well doesn't it make sense to simply stay out of a debate in which you don't know much? I mean suppose there were some controversy about Etruscan art, I wouldn't know or care about it, so I would have nothing to say! There are people here who know more cell biology than I do, but I think I can express a point of view based on the subject matter rather than on labels.

Goodness, if I were to operate at the level of labels, I'd probably agree with you (perish the thought) - I am no fan of Christianity!

The outlines of genetics and DNA are not that hard to understand if you are interested, so why not read up about the basics (where there is no controversy) and then contribute more sensibly?

David

OK - well doesn't it make sense to simply stay out of a debate in which you don't know much? I mean suppose there were some controversy about Etruscan art, I wouldn't know or care about it, so I would have nothing to say! There are people here who know more cell biology than I do, but I think I can express a point of view based on the subject matter rather than on labels.

Goodness, if I were to operate at the level of labels, I'd probably agree with you (perish the thought) - I am no fan of Christianity!

The outlines of genetics and DNA are not that hard to understand if you are interested, so why not read up about the basics (where there is no controversy) and then contribute more sensibly?

David

I didn't make up the labels of Creationist, Intelligent Design or they're variants. I will continue to use those terms. I have no issue with you, anyone questioning the finer points of evolution. Where the issue arises is when someone here points to a gap I  knowledge or a perceived impossibility then tries to insert God as the better explanation. In my opinion the view that's religiously philosophically based is sensibly open to attack, I'm certainly not the first to do so.

I didn't make up the labels of Creationist, Intelligent Design or they're variants. I will continue to use those terms. I have no issue with you, anyone questioning the finer points of evolution. Where the issue arises is when someone here points to a gap I  knowledge or a perceived impossibility then tries to insert God as the better explanation. In my opinion the view that's religiously philosophically based is sensibly open to attack, I'm certainly not the first to do so.

Here you are clearly confirming what I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread - your argument is based, not on any understanding of the science, but on your atheist agenda. You have a visceral need to deny God. This is no different to those who argue biblical creationism (which, yet again, is NOT ID) because of their need to believe in the biblical truth. 

What you don't seem to get is that the neo-darwinists, experts though they may be, have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the deficits in the theory pointed out by ID proponents. Watch some of the debates and you will see that they, like you, attack the religious background of their opponents rather than engage with them on the science. Steven Meyer insists that he is pointing to evidence of intelligence in the system, not to evidence of God. He happens to believe that the intelligence is God but does not claim that necessarily follows from the evidence - that is a matter of personal belief.

Perhaps if you took the time to read some of the arguments, to educate yourself just a little about the science and leave your atheistic baggage behind, then you might become aware of some of the problems with neo-darwinism. If you are just going to take the word of the high priests of materialism, then you have no business posting here. You should be taking your fight to some of the religious boards and taking on the equally blinkered fundamentalists there.

Here you are clearly confirming what I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread - your argument is based, not on any understanding of the science, but on your atheist agenda. You have a visceral need to deny God. This is no different to those who argue biblical creationism (which, yet again, is NOT ID) because of their need to believe in the biblical truth. 

What you don't seem to get is that the neo-darwinists, experts though they may be, have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the deficits in the theory pointed out by ID proponents. Watch some of the debates and you will see that they, like you, attack the religious background of their opponents rather than engage with them on the science. Steven Meyer insists that he is pointing to evidence of intelligence in the system, not to evidence of God. He happens to believe that the intelligence is God but does not claim that necessarily follows from the evidence - that is a matter of personal belief.

Perhaps if you took the time to read some of the arguments, to educate yourself just a little about the science and leave your atheistic baggage behind, then you might become aware of some of the problems with neo-darwinism. If you are just going to take the word of the high priests of materialism, then you have no business posting here. You should be taking your fight to some of the religious boards and taking on the equally blinkered fundamentalists there.

 It matters not what Meyer's thinks. What matters is the agenda of creationists and their sympathizers.

On the other hand, aligning yourself completely with the Discovery institute also does not help ones credibility too much either.

Spark guy,

I am here to parse thoughtful commentary on important subjects.  And while a rant against the DI may be interesting to some - - it seems to be a response to the post about the work of J. Scott Turner.  I know of no connection to the DI by Professor Turner, his work is not about god or God and I am interested in his professional opinions on the subject of bio-evolution.

I am no supporter of the DI and a vocal critic of W. Dembski.  However, your rant has nothing to do with discussion about evolutionary science.

From the Wiki article on Turner: 

 Turner proposes that modern evolutionary theory over-emphasizes genetic natural selection and a tendency to separate information from catalysis at the molecular level. By connecting information and catalysis, epigenesis coupled with homeostasis exemplifies the internal, directive capacities of the organism, linking information and behavior.  

  I strongly agree with the premise stated above.  I while there will be some here who mock as not understandable - I think it right to the point of current debate.

I have a very positive view of the scientific work of C. Darwin.  He was an outstanding observer of life and a careful research scientist.  He did not dismiss the obvious nature of emotional power contributing to fitness, and at the end of his career strongly supported mental evolution.  The materialistic view of neo-Darwinism has no place for what is clearly true in nature - "its not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog."

In terms of fitness, this fact about the ability of purposeful behavior to contribute to natural selection has been ignored too long.

I didn't make up the labels of Creationist, Intelligent Design or they're variants. I will continue to use those terms. I have no issue with you, anyone questioning the finer points of evolution. Where the issue arises is when someone here points to a gap I  knowledge or a perceived impossibility then tries to insert God as the better explanation.

Gaps exist in the conventional explanation. If you refuse to read up about it, you can't see the gaps. You seem very keen to raise the subject of God - even though I pointed out a fairly good reason not to attribute biology directly to God!

In my opinion the view that's religiously philosophically based is sensibly open to attack, I'm certainly not the first to do so.

I guess that sentence lost something on the way between brain and keyboard!

Intelligent design might mean all sorts of things. It might even be a sign that life on earth was synthesised by another life form in the universe. After all, conventional cosmology says Earth has existed for just 4.5 billion years out of a total of 13.8 billion - that might leave time for another race to evolve and then create life on earth as a lab experiment - in a totally materialist way!

David

Gaps exist in the conventional explanation. If you refuse to read up about it, you can't see the gaps. You seem very keen to raise the subject of God - even though I pointed out a fairly good reason not to attribute biology directly to God!
I guess that sentence lost something on the way between brain and keyboard!

Intelligent design might mean all sorts of things. It might even be a sign that life on earth was synthesised by another life form in the universe. After all, conventional cosmology says Earth has existed for just 4.5 billion years out of a total of 13.8 billion - that might leave time for another race to evolve and then create life on earth as a lab experiment - in a totally materialist way!

David

I provided many links detailing the position of Creationists and ID'ers. I even quoted the Discovery Institutes agenda from their Wedge document. Sparky did too. In neither of and at anytime does each faction entertain the idea of an alien race.