Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Uneasy bedfellows.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144641/t...ated-think

“Philip Glass on his hunts. He is furious with the bureaucrats who claim it is “a privilege, not a right” to bring back these animals as trophies to the US. He believes that God gave man dominion over the animals. He also says that “Anybody who believes in evolution is a complete fool.” 

Glass provides the most horror in this documentary. We see him shoot and kill an elephant, shooting it while it’s running away. The animal makes an extraordinary noise as it lies in the ground, like a growl mixed with a howl that turns into mewling. We see its eye so close up that its eyelashes are visible. The hunter and his guides wash the blood from its flank with water so that it will look better in the trophy photograph. Then we see the dead elephant from an aerial shot, lying flush against the ground with one leg crooked as if it is still running.

The elephant death is extraordinary footage, but Glass’s climactic kill is an adult male lion. Glass weeps over its body. He pets its corpse like it is alive. He marvels at its paws and claws, proclaiming it “absolutely magnificent” through tears. “This is my trophy and there’s not any bureaucrat that can take it away from me,” Glass says, fluffing up the lion’s mane like a hairdresser. He cries and speaks about his dead father, who would be proud of him in this moment.”

And your point is?

That questioning neo-darwinism is automatically aligned with right-wing, fundamentalist drivel like this? So all of those times you and I have agreed in political discussions about Trump, gun control, neo-fascists, etc., can be dismissed? Was I masquerading as a liberal? Just to be clear - that passage horrifies me and I do not condone a word of it - including the quote about evolution. I don't question evolution. I believe evolution is everywhere and inevitable. I also think that evolution has a purpose. I have suggested nothing other than that throughout this whole discussion yet, again, we see shit being flung in the hope it will stick.

It is possible for atoms to self assemble to become a doily. I bet your saying wtf right now. You see there are  estimated 10^78-10^82 atoms in the observable universe and there are a limited number of combinations those atoms can arrange themselves. Given enough time ( the universe is expected to have an extremely long lifetime), every combination those atoms can make will be made. So a doily will naturally spontaneously appear.

Besides that, the doily analogy (not being a native English speaker, had to look up that word) illustrates another flaw in the ID logic.
They assume that the doily is the desired result, while there might be millions of other examples of complex things.
Things that would be equally impressive to have emerged from random interactions.
Meaning that the chance of getting to any one of these millions of complexities, is also millions of times greater than the chance of getting to a specific one.  

To step away from the analogy, cdesign proponentsists always come to these impossibly small numbers, if they make calculations for the chances of a specific organism evolving.
But why should we assume this specific organism has to evolve? That is already assuming teleology.
If, on the other hand, we calculate the possibility for any, non specific, similarly complex, organism to evolve, the numbers suddenly become many orders of magnitude larger.

And your point is?

That questioning neo-darwinism is automatically aligned with right-wing, fundamentalist drivel like this? So all of those times you and I have agreed in political discussions about Trump, gun control, neo-fascists, etc., can be dismissed? Was I masquerading as a liberal? Just to be clear - that passage horrifies me and I do not condone a word of it - including the quote about evolution. I don't question evolution. I believe evolution is everywhere and inevitable. I also think that evolution has a purpose. I have suggested nothing other than that throughout this whole discussion yet, again, we see shit being flung in the hope it will stick.

Sure. That’s why I began with “uneasy bedfellows”.

The arguments presented by some on here are indistinguishable from the Christian apologetics against evolution. The DI is, at heart, a Christian organisation. Other than enabling the worst sort of fundamentalist behaviour, what is your goal for trying to shoehorn ‘intelligence’ into natural processes? ”Keeping ‘science’ honest” may be some sort of answer, but that’s presupposes that ‘science’ isn’t continuing to refine its models constantly without your ‘help’.

Sure. That’s why I began with “uneasy bedfellows”.

The arguments presented by some on here are indistinguishable from the Christian apologetics against evolution. The DI is, at heart, a Christian organisation. Other than enabling the worst sort of fundamentalist behaviour, what is your goal for trying to shoehorn ‘intelligence’ into natural processes? ”Keeping ‘science’ honest” may be some sort of answer, but that’s presupposes that ‘science’ isn’t continuing to refine its models constantly without your ‘help’.

Just another ad-hom, malf. The science they present must be wrong because they work for the DI. When you actually address the science and point out what is wrong - and allow others to respond without you resorting to the knee-jerk "can't believe them cos they're Christians" - then I'll take you seriously. So far your responses have been repetitions of the same charge while nbruthman and others have been presenting scientific arguments. You need to evaluate the science for yourself and and point out why the evidence presented by nbrtuthman, etc., is wrong or, worse, evangelical Christianity. For example, show me where pointing out the problem of the Cambrian Explosion equates to some passage in Genesis or where the DI scientists support the story of Noah, the ark and the animals, two by two. 

Nobody one either side is under any illusion that the DI doesn't have a religious motive - and I've said many times that I'm not comfortable with that. But what better argument for them than present some science which can be debated rather than quote a passage from the Bible? Yet when they do, their scientists are met with aggression and ridicule for suggesting what? Teleology is what. Why is that so dangerous in the minds of atheists? What is presupposed when you put 'science' in quotes like that is materialism - and that is your dogma.

Also, you need to answer the other problems for neo-darwinism arising from the Third Way people, etc. Some of those problems are also highlighted by the ID crowd.

Just another ad-hom, malf. The science they present must be wrong because they work for the DI. When you actually address the science and point out what is wrong - and allow others to respond without you resorting to the knee-jerk "can't believe them cos they're Christians" - then I'll take you seriously. So far your responses have been repetitions of the same charge while nbruthman and others have been presenting scientific arguments. You need to evaluate the science for yourself and and point out why the evidence presented by nbrtuthman, etc., is wrong or, worse, evangelical Christianity. For example, show me where pointing out the problem of the Cambrian Explosion equates to some passage in Genesis or where the DI scientists support the story of Noah, the ark and the animals, two by two. 

Nobody one either side is under any illusion that the DI doesn't have a religious motive - and I've said many times that I'm not comfortable with that. But what better argument for them than present some science which can be debated rather than quote a passage from the Bible? Yet when they do, their scientists are met with aggression and ridicule for suggesting what? Teleology is what. Why is that so dangerous in the minds of atheists? What is presupposed when you put 'science' in quotes like that is materialism - and that is your dogma.

Also, you need to answer the other problems for neo-darwinism arising from the Third Way people, etc. Some of those problems are also highlighted by the ID crowd.

The difference between the third way and the DI is that one group is starting with the problems and then trying to solve them, whilst the other is starting with the solution. Realising this difference is key. Look at Alex these days; he has his new world order solution and he can fold any and all evidence into that. One ends up getting nowhere.

I might be wrong but I don’t think any of the regular skeptics are looking at the ‘third way’ group with anything other than interest.

My approach is to look at the actual arguments for some sort of design in biology, and discard completely that the god of the Bible had anything to do with it. I am not a Christian, and neither is Nbtruthman.

The crucial thing, is that there are lots of good hard arguments that evolution by natural selection will not cut it.

Do you discard the ideas of Newton because he was also interested in alchemy?

There are some very interesting books coming out the problems with Darwinism, some are by Discovery Institute people, and if those people are motivated by the idea because they identify the intelligence with the Christian God, well I'd say they must believe in a rather odd God.

1)           A god that would help both sides in a biological arms race.

2)          A god who devises ghastly diseases for human beings. If you identify the Christian god with ID, you are saying He doesn't just permit these tortures, he sits in his lab and hones the diseases to perfection.

Obviously whatever the intelligence is, it is a lot more local - i.e. the intelligence that helps a parasitic wasp is not the same as the intelligence that helps its caterpillar prey.

David

Your last line reminded me of Blake (though in reverse): did he who made the lamb make thee?

. . . And I would add that I agree with Blake. I believe the same intelligence that made the parasitic wasp made the caterpillar.

The difference between the third way and the DI is that one group is starting with the problems and then trying to solve them, whilst the other is starting with the solution. Realising this difference is key. Look at Alex these days; he has his new world order solution and he can fold any and all evidence into that. One ends up getting nowhere.

I might be wrong but I don’t think any of the regular skeptics are looking at the ‘third way’ group with anything other than interest.

Your arms must be getting tired with all the hand waving. 

There is a fundamental difference between the approach of the third way and the DI. To call my pointing that out ‘hand-waving’ illustrates nicely why you are providing support to our big game hunter friend above, and creationists everywhere. You’re falling for their PR.

Do you genuinely not see the difference in approach?

But hand waving is all you are doing. You have not addressed any of the issues - all you do is accuse those who don't agree with your point of being in the same camp as the right-wing creationists. You know very well that is not true but you ignore it. To be honest, malf - much as I appreciate your participation - I am feeling offended by these repeated accusations which are not justified.

I'll come back again to the likes of Thomas Nagel - an atheist and far from the creationist you caricature with your jibes yet his position is not far removed from mine. Or Raymond Tallis, another atheist who wrote about "Neuromania and Darwinitis". 

Or a respected biologist, the late Lynn Margulis:

A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and once the wife of Carl Sagan, biologist Lynn Margulis (1938–2011) is not the first person one might expect to critique neo- Darwinian theory vocally. But that’s exactly what she did. In an interview shortly before her death, Margulis explained, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Echoing the arguments of many ID proponents, Margulis maintains that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” In a 2003 book co-authored with Dorion Sagan (the son of Carl), she elaborates:

"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement….Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation."

Some Darwin defenders have cited Margulis’s eminence as evidence that critics have freedom to express their views. Margulis doesn’t agree, noting that “anyone who is overtly critical of the foundations of his science is persona non grata.” Other atheists who challenge Darwin have made similar observations.

Coming back to the DI, not all are Christian Fundamentalists. There's David Berlinski:

The Discovery Institute does not propose to inaugurate a form of theocratic kingship in the United States, and far from being a Christian right-wing fundamentalist, I am myself a secular Jew, one who has faithfully maintained since the age of 13 a remarkable indifference to the religious life.

Are these the kind of people you expect to see paying lots of US dollars to shoot and kill beautiful wildlife in Africa. Please think again before throwing out baseless accusations. I'm half convinced you gave your login and password to Steve001 and I'm not actually talking to the real malf.