Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

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.

I know, and you never seem to discuss the real issues. Newton was interested in alchemy, does that devalue his contribution in your eyes?

David

I know, and you never seem to discuss the real issues. Newton was interested in alchemy, does that devalue his contribution in your eyes?

David

Please. He was a man of great faith but Newton recognized the truth about the natural world irrespective of that faith.

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)

Please count me as a believer that there is 6 Sigma level of confidence (or more) in the data supporting species development, extinction and species change to new living organisms with slightly altered DNA.

The question is what is the range of processes that are causal in effecting these changes.  In terms of mapping the process - RM + NS is not responsible for much of the adaptation measured in generation to generation change; and therefore other process models are rapidly being discovered. 

If you think ID or creationism fails, that's fine.  Clinging to RM + NA is quickly becoming the "flat-earth view".

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:    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.

Stephen dude,

The post you quoted was in no way meant as answer to the post about the work of J. Scott Turner 
It was in answer to another post, if you hit the link at the top of that post, you can see which one ( http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-12...l#pid10193).

Stephen dude,

The post you quoted was in no way meant as answer to the post about the work of J. Scott Turner 

My post was in every way meant to help you -- not derail the thread with vague comments about politics and religion.  Do you have any commentary about counter-factual evidence to modern Darwinism, such as presented by Turner or academics involved with the Third Way.  Please note: that Dr Turner and Third Way of Evolution proponents do not ascribe to the DI.

Are organisms that can harness the "will to live" and other survival instincts more fit and pass on emotional intelligence in their genes.

It seems to me that in human breeding that alpha males do better at the club scene?  (my data may be out of date).  I think they do get lucky more often, especially when they have documented results as to winning in sports, titles and finances.

What is meant to you by the phrase "good genes"?

Please. He was a man of great faith but Newton recognized the truth about the natural world irrespective of that faith.

I think many (most?) ID proponents are exactly the same. They recognise the obvious fact that evolution by natural selection is not an adequate explanation of life on earth, now that we know that genes consist of long strings of DNA.

David

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

What are you suggesting? We ignore the DI's anti-scientific, theistic, political, goals? Their feeble attempts to mimic peer review?
Their deliberate, and repeated, misunderstanding, and misrepresenting, of what evolution by NS actually means? 

Do we believe what they say without any doubt? Is there any shred of scientific evidence for what they say?
How do we know there something beyond their pointing at a gap in the knowledge and simply stating "that'st design"?
 

From their founding document, the one that laid out their "wedge strategy":

I certainly don't align myself completely with the Discovery Institute. I don't care about DI's political goals. Its theistic goals are certainly not mine, but are still a long-needed counter to the toxic religion of scientism that science has degenerated into amongst most of the intelligentsia and scientists of our society. Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism are the essence of scientism, and its dismal creed is well expressed by psychologist and parapsychologist Charles Tart:

The Western Creed

"I believe in the material universe as the only and ultimate reality, a universe controlled by fixed physical laws and blind chance.

I affirm that the universe has no creator, no objective purpose, and no objective meaning or destiny.

I maintain that all ideas about God or gods, supernatural beings, prophets and saviors, or other nonphysical beings or forces are superstitions and delusions. Life and consciousness are totally identical to physical processes, and arose from chance interactions of blind physical forces. Like the rest of life, my life and consciousness have no objective purpose, meaning, or destiny.

I believe that all judgments, values, and moralities, whether my own or others', are subjective, arising solely from biological determinants, personal history, and chance. Free will is an illusion. Therefore, the most rational values I can personally live by must be based on the knowledge that for me what pleases me is Good, what pains me is Bad. Those who please me or help me avoid pain are my friends; those who pain me or keep me from my pleasures are my enemies. Rationality requires that friends and enemies be used in ways that maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain.

I affirm that churches have no real use other than social support; that there are no objective sins to commit or be forgiven for; that there is no retribution for sin or reward for virtue other than that which I can arrange, directly or through others. Virtue for me is getting what I want without being caught and punished by others.

I maintain that the death of the body is the death of the mind. There is no afterlife, and all hope for such is nonsense"


But debating these larger issues of the culture war going on in our society is not the purpose of this thread. None of this is relevant to the validity of the extensive evidence and scientific arguments presented by DI (and many other) intelligent design scientists and thinkers, some of whom are agnostics. Some supporters are even atheists. 

One example of such an atheist is Bradley Monton, who wrote a book on the issue: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. He is a strong atheist who has no intention of converting to any religion. He has written an atheistic intelligent design book. In his book he explains Intelligent Design is a valid form of philosophical and scientific inquiry that should be undertaken rather than dismissed, and examines some of the arguments and finds them quite plausible. From a summary of the book: "Monton explains how "intelligent design is a valid and genuine search for explanation, a quest for understanding, a pursuit of truth; and it is manifestly worthwhile for those reasons regardless of what social issues may be attached to it." 

Plenty more examples could be cited. Anyway, the ultimate validity of the actual evidence and arguments has nothing to do with what you think DI's underlying motivation is. An argument must stand or fall on its own merits, and scrutinizing the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of a person making an argument commits the genetic logical fallacy. 

Just a little of these arguments has been summarized in various posts in this thread. I notice you haven't actually engaged with any of these arguments or shown in detail how they are fallacious - just a few general comments about how they supposedly have been refuted by Darwinists.

I think many (most?) ID proponents are exactly the same. They recognise the obvious fact that evolution by natural selection is not an adequate explanation of life on earth, now that we know that genes consist of long strings of DNA.

David

It is odd, maybe not, that the mission statement I quoted from the lD institute has fallen upon your deaf ears.

One example of such an atheist is Bradley Monton, who wrote a book on the issue: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. He is a strong atheist who has no intention of converting to any religion. He has written an atheistic intelligent design book. 

Brave man. Look what happened to Thomas Nagel after he came out in support of ID (or, rather, a form of goal-directed evolution). His version too was atheistic - being a lifelong atheist (and remaining so) himself. He went from hero to zero among his own former supporters. 

Here's a thoughtful article in the Guardian, of all papers, written while the furore over Nagel's heresy was still fresh. I'll quote a little from the article:

It is as if his heart said to his head, I can't help but feel that materialist reductionism isn't right. And his head said to his heart, OK: let's take a fresh look. So what caused the offence?

Several things, but consider one: the contention that evolution may tend towards consciousness. Nagel is explicit that he himself is not countenancing a designer. Rather, he wonders whether science needs to entertain the possibility that a teleological trend is immanent in nature.

There it is. The t-word – a major taboo among evolutionary biologists. Goal-directed explanations automatically question your loyalty to Darwin. As Friedrich Engels celebrated, when reading On The Origin of Species in 1859: "There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done." But has it? This is the moot point.

Another article on the treatment of Nagel by what this author terms "the scientistic tyranny": 

https://newrepublic.com/article/112481/d...hilosopher

It is odd, maybe not, that the mission statement I quoted from the lD institute has fallen upon your deaf ears.

I would have thought you would be the first to recognise that religious mission statements are not scientific, and so can't really enter the debate - yet it is you (and Sparky) who constantly push the debate here away from science and back to religious questions.

David