Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

It wasn't until fairly recent years that I gave much thought to Darwinism or ID or any other opposing theories. That interest was kick-started by the long running discussion on the Skeptiko forum with Paul and Lone Shaman, Michael, David B and a few others debating both sides. I learned a lot from that exchange. My mind was particularly blown by the videos of the intricate complexity of the DNA replication factory in the cell. Absolutely amazing - I challenge anyone to claim otherwise. Also the code in DNA had some remarkable similarities to the codes I was used to working with in my job in computers. Even down to what is called "stop bits" and (maybe) error correction*.

I can't tell you how much I wish that Lone Shaman was posting on one or other of the two sites. He is immensely knowledgeable, not just in biology, but also GR and cosmology.

Some time back, I contacted him and urged him to return, but although he is well, I don't think he intends ever to return.

Eukaryotic cells do have a form of error detection, but I forget the details.

David

So when I read this I have to wonder why, considering that skeptics are so fond of Occam's Razor, that it suddenly loses its appeal when we talk about evolution.

How so?

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

You're really going to take this quote out of context?

"Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. ... Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."


~~ Paul

I cannot disagree more strongly.  Design has a definition in terms of enforcing purpose and intent, whether done by a genius in engineering, or by a single celled organism.  I can quote C. Darwin as to writings where he appears to express exactly the idea that mentality goes to root of living things and evolution.  The key to design is feedback on previous versions!!!!!

Then evolution is not a design process. If you find an evolved thing that you think is designed, you are simply projecting human design onto it.

~~ Paul

The key characteristic of "design" is that it embodies large amounts of complex specified information in the form of complicated intricate mechanisms, often irreducibly complex.

Complex specified information is not well-defined.

The complete statement is, "the only source of such designs that we know of through direct observation and experience is conscious intelligent agents."  The first Webster definition of "to know" is "to perceive directly, have direct cognition of". If you know of any other source of design that similarly qualifies as being known through direct observation and experience please describe it.

The statement is irrelevent since the concept of complex specified information is not well-defined.

However, I'd be perfectly happy to see a proposed definition of it so we can discuss it.

~~ Paul

The point is not whether people have referenced the DI, but whether they agree with them that Yaweh designed the whole of life, and everything else.

Non Christians - such as myself - can admire the DI for the way it marshals evidence, not so much in favour of the idea that God did it, as against the conventional theory of evolution solely by natural selection.

Sometimes the right way forward in science, is to stop claiming that something is understood, and to return to the default position that the explanation is yet to be determined. In that way, people are freed off to look at the subject afresh.

In the same way as non-Christians such as yourself, can admire great cathedrals as works of art without feeling that they are supporting Christianity.

David

Referencing the Discovery Institute think tank would not be a point if this think tank did not associate itself with Christianity. Each and every member believes in God and has a vested interest in putting God back into all of society. Their goal is not to iron out the how of evolution to better understand how species arose. It is to undermine and put it on equal footing with TOE plus a whole lot more as you see when reading further.

Both Sparky and me posted excepts from the D.I. Wedge Document which sets out the goals of the D.I. Unfortunately it's seems to have gotten lost in all the back and forth. A quote from part of it to refresh everyone's memory.

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. (note they specifically single out humanity to be special)
  

Five Year Goals

• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  
• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
  

Twenty Year Goals

• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
  
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
  

         
https://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

Evolution is a well established fact even if you choose not to believe that.

Referencing the Discovery Institute think tank would not be a point if this think tank did not associate itself with Christianity. Each and every member believes in God and has a vested interest in putting God back into all of society. Their goal is not to iron out the how of evolution to better understand how species arose. It is to undermine and put it on equal footing with TOE plus a whole lot more as you see when reading further.

Both Sparky and me posted excepts from the D.I. Wedge Document which sets out the goals of the D.I. Unfortunately it's seems to have gotten lost in all the back and forth. A quote from part of it to refresh everyone's memory.

Just amazing, really. You still completely missed the point of everyone's responses to you. I'm honestly incredulous at how entirely oblivious to your own blind spots you are, even when they are directly pointed out. 

Evolution is a well established fact even if you choose not to believe that.

Ah, but, as nearly everyone has mentioned, that isn't the issue here, is it? It's a nice way for you to try to demean your opponents (by saying something that is not debated, as far as I can tell) and make yourself feel safe and sound, but in fact, that is not the issue at all, as Dave, Stephen, Michael, nbu and others have mentioned. It's painfully obvious that you're struggling to sort out what's at issue here, or what ought to be.

Non Christians - such as myself - can admire the DI for the way it marshals evidence, not so much in favour of the idea that God did it, as against the conventional theory of evolution solely by natural selection.

I think "marshals the evidence" is an excellent way of putting it. Preparing selected evidence for war and spinning it a certain way, whilst ignoring the weight of contrary evidence. The conclusion always comes first, and is sacrosanct.

Complex specified information is not well-defined.

The statement is irrelevent since the concept of complex specified information is not well-defined.

However, I'd be perfectly happy to see a proposed definition of it so we can discuss it.

~~ Paul

Here is an interesting paper on Demski's "Complex Specified Information".

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

Here is an interesting paper on Demski's "Complex Specified Information".

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

Yes, that is a classic analysis of the concept. The Wiki article is pretty good, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

This would be much more exciting if anyone had ever calculated the specified complexity of a biological mechanism.

~~ Paul