Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I didn't say nbtruthman was proposing a designer. I'm wondering in what way this is supposed to represent some sort of fatal problem to the field of evolutionary study, such that proposals like ID are given hope (let alone validity).

Linda

We can all see what you said - and I did not claim that you said nbtruthman was proposing a designer - you suggested that he said Müller was. 

Nbtruthman, you seem to still be spinning this in a way that Muller did not say. And he [Müller] certainly did not say that any of the less developed areas of the various fields of investigation should be filled with "Designer" in the meantime, nor imply that they would need an entirely different (supernatural) approach in order to advance the field.

I'm starting to wonder what the point of this debate even is anymore. I mean, what does either side win if they're right?

I'm starting to wonder what the point of this debate even is anymore. I mean, what does either side win if they're right?

You could say the same about the whole forum. Views are clearly as polarised as they were at Skeptiko. If it were just the kind of hand-waving assertions that Steve001 is fond of, then I would agree, there's no point. But I find myself somewhat better educated when I read some of the input from people like nbtuthman, Chris or stephenw where details and possible explantions are offered. I had never heard of Müller before this discussion, for example.

Nbtruthman, you seem to still be spinning this in a way that Muller did not say. And he certainly did not say that any of the less developed areas of the various fields of investigation should be filled with "Designer" in the meantime, nor imply that they would need an entirely different (supernatural) approach in order to advance the field.

Linda

As Kamarling has remarked, you seem to be creating a straw man to attack here. Read what I said. In addition to reports from attendees on his presentation at the Royal Society meeting,  I quoted Müller twice where in print he clearly admits to the broad explanatory gaps in the neo-Darwinistic theory. He obviously thinks that his new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis can potentially fill all the gaps, while retaining most of the former Modern Synthesis. I summarized a little of his thinking along those lines from his article. I never claimed that Müller puts any stock in Designer or other teleological ideas. He obviously dismisses them out of hand. 

Wait - where exactly did nbtruthman say that Müller introduced a "Designer" or endorsed a supernatural approach? I've been attempting to follow this thread but I cannot recall nbtruthman associating Müller with either creationism or ID. The gist of his reporting of what Müller is saying is that there are problems with the neo-darwinist model. That doesn't make him a creationist or an ID proponent even if those groups happen to agree with him about those same problems. 





Seems to me you are the one spinning by trying to distract away from the problems Müller has highlighted by creating a straw man.

Nbtruthman wrote this in post 29

Intricate, irreducibly complex design is widespread in life. The only source we know of of such designs is our own focused, self-aware, conscious intelligence, the intelligence of entities [humans] that use logical steps of reasoning plus sometimes intuitive creative leaps to do their work and solve their engineering problems one step at a time. It seems reasonable to me to surmise that whatever the intelligence is behind macroevolution, it also has these properties. To me, a "pervasive intelligence" imbued in everything just doesn't fit those requirements. It is interesting that some channeled teachings have it that this consists of intervention from outside our physical world by spirits of some sort (higher beings that are not God, sometimes claimed to be groups of souls specialized in these matters). ID of course does not speculate about these things (the nature of the intelligence) - this movement just continues to make a better and better case for its necessary existence.

Nbtruthman certainly seems sympathetic to supernatural Christian ID

We can all see what you said - and I did not claim that you said nbtruthman was proposing a designer - you suggested that he said Müller was. 

I didn't say nbtruthman was proposing that Muller was proposing a designer. I'm wondering in what way this is supposed to represent some sort of fatal problem to the field of evolutionary study, such that proposals like ID are given hope (let alone validity).

Linda

As Kamarling has remarked, you seem to be creating a straw man to attack here. Read what I said. In addition to reports from attendees on his presentation at the Royal Society meeting,  I quoted Müller twice where in print he clearly admits to the broad explanatory gaps in the neo-Darwinistic theory. He obviously thinks that his new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis can potentially fill all the gaps, while retaining most of the former Modern Synthesis. I summarized a little of his thinking along those lines from his article. I never claimed that Müller puts any stock in Designer or other teleological ideas. He obviously dismisses them out of hand. 

So, as far as (you think) Müller proves your point, he is a credible expert. But if, on the other hand, he does not believe in an intelligent designer, it must be "dismissing out of hand"?

Why should I bother, but here it goes anyway.

Steve001 obviously hasn't read what I have written, at least at all clearly. He should get it through his head that I am not a Christian and I am not advocating that a God in the sky has been reaching down to meddle in evolution. I merely feel that arguments and evidence are compelling that some form of intelligence has been at work. I don't know what that intelligence is. "Its necessary existence" means the necessary existence of some form of intelligence involved in evolution. DI scientists and scholars have done a lot of good work in scientifically investigating this. Steve001 can't seem to be able to resist making it an issue of superstitious Christianity versus heroic science and making me guilty by association with the Bible-thumpers. That's at least two logical fallacies - the irrelevance of origins (genetic fallacy), and guilt by association (ad hominem). As I have mentioned before, where is the Ignore button.

Why should I bother, but here it goes anyway.

Steve001 obviously hasn't read what I have written, at least at all clearly. He should get it through his head that I am not a Christian and I am not advocating that a God in the sky has been reaching down to meddle in evolution. I merely feel that arguments and evidence are compelling that some form of intelligence has been at work. I don't know what that intelligence is. "Its necessary existence" means the necessary existence of some form of intelligence involved in evolution. DI scientists and scholars have done a lot of good work in scientifically investigating this. Steve001 can't seem to be able to resist making it an issue of superstitious Christianity versus heroic science and making me guilty by association with the Bible-thumpers. That's at least two logical fallacies - the irrelevance of origins (genetic fallacy), and guilt by association (ad hominem). As I have mentioned before, where is the Ignore button.

The one thing that maintains my interest in this thread and, by extension, in this forum is the fact that subjects like this can be discussed without becoming reduced to a religion vs scientism mud slinging row (like the YouTube comments section). However, Steve001 cannot raise his game beyond the puerile and clearly wants to drag this one down to his level. I'm not a moderator so all I can do is, like you, ignore him.

I think I can see both sides here. Clearly there is some confusion as we have apparent non religious types advancing arguments that look surprisingly similar to abrahamic apologetics. The common ground may be unfortunate, but is certainly there.

I guess it would be nice to see the folks that are advancing ‘some intelligence’ give some reasoning as to why a Christian god is an unlikely candidate? Or preferably give a better candidate? Persistently avoiding these questions, whilst protesting injury, starts to look a bit coy and rehearsed.