"Exposing Discovery Institute": video series by "Professor" Dave Farina

Science should not be treated as a belief system. Science should be treated as a tool for examining hypotheses.

Many scientists believe in stuff that is not scientific at all ~ like Physicalism and Materialism.

The institutions of science are only as good as their weakest link... as scientists are only fallible and human.

Throughout history, many paradigms have been shattered ~ and their adherents never went quietly.

Science itself isn't a belief system, but from what I said in other comments all too often following what the scientific evidence says can lead people to certain beliefs and conclusions. Is just the way it works out. Often because the evidence disproves beliefs that themselves are based in intuition. 

And if there's one thing I've been espousing recently it's that physicalism and materialism are very, VERY scientific viewpoints and their adherents have sound reasons to believe in them. Whether or not they paint the whole picture of reality is quite obviously up for debate, but they've done a damn good job at painting it historically and people shouldn't be faulted for liking them.

Science itself isn't a belief system, but from what I said in other comments all too often following what the scientific evidence says can lead people to certain beliefs and conclusions. Is just the way it works out. Often because the evidence disproves beliefs that themselves are based in intuition. 

It depends quite significantly on what precisely you mean by "scientific evidence" here. Science is not in the business of telling you what to believe or how to interpret scientific results ~ or it shouldn't, rather, because that is the domain of philosophy, not science.

And if there's one thing I've been espousing recently it's that physicalism and materialism are very, VERY scientific viewpoints and their adherents have sound reasons to believe in them. Whether or not they paint the whole picture of reality is quite obviously up for debate, but they've done a damn good job at painting it historically and people shouldn't be faulted for liking them.

Physicalism and Materialism are not responsible for any of science's successes ~ that's just Physicalists and Materialists usurping science for their own, to weaponize in a war against religion. Basically, it's just more Atheism versus Christianity.

It depends quite significantly on what precisely you mean by "scientific evidence" here. Science is not in the business of telling you what to believe or how to interpret scientific results ~ or it shouldn't, rather, because that is the domain of philosophy, not science.

Physicalism and Materialism are not responsible for any of science's successes ~ that's just Physicalists and Materialists usurping science for their own, to weaponize in a war against religion. Basically, it's just more Atheism versus Christianity.

You're right, science isn't the business of telling you what to believe or how to interpret your results. But we're not splitting hairs here, if someone tells you to believe in something so you test it and the result turns out negative, you aren't going to interpret it in a way that it's actually positive. Scientific results can very easly influence people's beliefs, even if they don't 'tell' them what to believe. 

And materialism and physicalism are responsible for some of science's successes. The idea that things are material, that they are based in a physicalist system, has driven people to new avenues of scientific exploration. We all here have our misgivings about neuroscience, but leaps and bounds of research has been made that has actively improved people's lives BASED on the philosophical ideas of physicalism. If we had different ideas of how the brain worked, that the brain didn't effect disorders and conditions and it was purely caused by non-physical problems, that research may have never happened at all. 

Physicalism is the same as any other philosophical position throughout history. It has its time in the sun and is either found to be not sufficient in it's explanations or is further cemented. One day it might be replaced with a whole different idea, but until that day comes I don't see any good reason to deny the things that have come from physicalism's influence on the world just because we don't agree that it's entirely true. Especially not framing in as a the whole atheism vs Christianity thing since there's no small number of misgivings people can have against Christianity even if they aren't a materialist.

Thanks for your reply, @nbtruthman. It seems that this is not as open and shut a case as Dave Farina has made out, and that he has been overconfident in making his own case.

Re your later post:


Having not looked in depth into all of this, it is hard for me to get at the truth, especially when it comes to the fossil record stuff. I did read the articles to which you linked though.

That's another way of saying that I don't feel qualified to assess the validity of your points. I do appreciate you taking the time to address this with references though.

What most of this seems to me to hinge on is the likelihood of any given random mutation being beneficial, and of the rate at which random mutations occur. I'm impressed that Sci is taking the time to dig into and summarise all of this in separate threads. Perhaps he will have some insights into this issue by the end of it.

I'm also trying to keep my metaphysical bias in check, because, obviously, as a dualist, a neo-Darwinian explanation of life is a lot harder for me to accommodate, so I am naturally (accidental reverse pun) inclined to affirm alternative explanations, like ID.

In my opinion the spread over the entire physical fossil record of the phenomenon of short-duration big jumps in organismal complexity is the most unssailably strong argument for ID. These are simply impossible for the Darwinist RM + NS model to plausibly explain, and this ID argument is based on physical evidence that can't be denied to exist, and most of the data on this issue is in papers published in peer reviewed journals by mainstream Darwinist evolutionists.

This argument over this physical fossil data is I think much more straightforward than with the other arguments, such as over Irreducible Complexity and over the invariable genetic deterioration accompanying Darwinian RM+NS, which have a greater number of different (still invalid) Darwinist arguments against them. And the argument over the fossil record showing multiple saltational jumps in complexity is also much less mathematically involved and doesn't require such a considerable store of knowlege to understand. The fossil record argument is I think the easyest one for the layperson to understand.

In my opinion the spread over the entire physical fossil record of the phenomenon of short-duration big jumps in organismal complexity is the most unssailably strong argument for ID. These are simply impossible for the Darwinist RM + NS model to plausibly explain, and this ID argument is based on physical evidence that can't be denied to exist, and most of the data on this issue is in papers published in peer reviewed journals by mainstream Darwinist evolutionists.

This argument over this physical fossil data is I think much more straightforward than with the other arguments, such as over Irreducible Complexity and over the invariable genetic deterioration accompanying Darwinian RM+NS, which have a greater number of different (still invalid) Darwinist arguments against them. And the argument over the fossil record showing multiple saltational jumps in complexity is also much less mathematically involved and doesn't require such a considerable store of knowlege to understand. The fossil record argument is I think the easyest one for the layperson to understand.

I haven't gotten to posting about this just yet, but Farina does present a variety of examples in the fossil record to show gradual transition of, IIRC, every group that Meyer claims had novel forms appear in the record without plausible past explanation.

This isn't to say Farina has the definitive last word on the matter, as I need to deeply go through Bechly's rebuttals which I've only skimmed in parts so far.

Not to say you're wrong, but it seems to me this question of novel forms is under serious contention. If you want to check out Farina's arguments before I get to them this link holds the correct timestamp:

https://youtu.be/Akv0TZI985U?t=2314

I haven't gotten to posting about this just yet, but Farina does present a variety of examples in the fossil record to show gradual transition of, IIRC, every group that Meyer claims had novel forms appear in the record without plausible past explanation.

This isn't to say Farina has the definitive last word on the matter, as I need to deeply go through Bechly's rebuttals which I've only skimmed in parts so far.

Not to say you're wrong, but it seems to me this question of novel forms is under serious contention. If you want to check out Farina's arguments before I get to them this link holds the correct timestamp:

https://youtu.be/Akv0TZI985U?t=2314

I can't say specifically if this is Bechly's argument or not and I don't have time to go look up the data to see if stands up to scrutiny but I can summarize one of the arguments I've heard:

The ID argument about the lack of evidence for gradual transitions applies to macroevolution not microevolution.  

They find a few transition forms showing a transformation occurred in a few large steps, and they have many many examples of each transition form. What they should have is many transition forms showing a continuous change not a few large steps. The significance of the fact that they have many examples of each transition form and nothing in between each large step is that if there were a gradual series of intermediate stages they would have been found, and their absences is not due lack of enough samples but because there was not a gradual change involving many intermediate stages. Also sometimes the time line of the transitions gets upset when they find a later form existed before and "earlier" form.

This applies to macroevolution (ie. going from a land mammal to a whale) not microevolution. Microevolution involves recombining existing versions of genes for example that can produce different sized organisms. If you found transitions between typical humans and pigmies, that would be microevolution not macroevolution.

I didn't watch the video but if the examples of gradual transition are really gradual (many intermediates showing truly gradual change and just not a few large steps) but they are are examples of microevolution not macroevolution, they don't rebut what ID folks are saying.


Also, just a point about analyzing the debate:  I think you should look at what non ID paleontologists say about the ID arguments on paleontology. Farina has an BA in chemistry and an MA in education:

From his youtube channel:

I received a BA in chemistry from Carleton College, and performed graduate studies in both synthetic organic chemistry and science education at Cal State Northridge, receiving an MA in the latter. Prior to this I taught for about a decade in various high school and undergraduate settings, specializing in organic chemistry but also teaching general chemistry, physics, and biology.

I'm not saying this discredits him, I am just saying there are better sources of critics that can represent the mainstream paleontological view against ID.

I can't say specifically if this is Bechly's argument or not and I don't have time to go look up the data to see if stands up to scrutiny but I can summarize one of the arguments I've heard:

The ID argument about the lack of evidence for gradual transitions applies to macroevolution not microevolution.  

They find a few transition forms showing a transformation occurred in a few large steps, and they have many many examples of each transition form. What they should have is many transition forms showing a continuous change not a few large steps. The significance of the fact that they have many examples of each transition form and nothing in between each large step is that if there were a gradual series of intermediate stages they would have been found, and their absences is not due lack of enough samples but because there was not a gradual change involving many intermediate stages.

This applies to macroevolution (going from a land mammal to a whale) not microevolution. Microevolution involves recombining existing versions of genes for example that can produce different sized organisms. If you found transitions between typical humans and pigmies, that would be microevolution not macroevolution.

So I didn't watch the video but if the examples of gradual transition are really gradual (many intermediates showing truly gradual change and just not a few large steps) and they are are examples of microevolution not macroevolution, they don't rebut what ID folks are saying.


Also, just a point about analyzing the debate:  I think you should look at what non ID paleontologists say about the ID arguments on paleontology. Farina has an BA in chemistry and an MA in education:

From his youtube channel:


I'm not saying this discredits him, I am just saying there are better sources of critics that can represent the mainstream paleontological view against ID.

IIRC Bechly does cover this, he has seven articles about the one hour or so long video Farina made about Meyer. 

I do plan to cover all seven articles in the dedicated thread, to make sure I balance both sides.

...

Also, just a point about analyzing the debate:  I think you should look at what non ID paleontologists say about the ID arguments on paleontology. Farina has an BA in chemistry and an MA in education:

From his youtube channel:


I'm not saying this discredits him, I am just saying there are better sources of critics that can represent the mainstream paleontological view against ID.

The ID folks have quoted mainstream paleontologists agreeing with them on the missing transitions. I would look for those quotes and see if they can be verified and if they are taken out of context or not. 

I know it's annoying me giving advice and not doing any work, sorry I'm just interested but well not that interested, like I said every time I investigate a materialist claim it doesn't stand up to scrutiny so I am not motivated to put in a lot of work. I know it's an underhanded way to make an argument. Sorry.

The ID folks have quoted mainstream paleontologists agreeing with them on the missing transitions. I would look for those quotes and see if they can be verified and if they are taken out of context or not. 

I know it's annoying me giving advice and not doing any work, sorry I'm just interested but well not that interested, like I said every time I investigate a materialist claim it doesn't stand up to scrutiny so I am not motivated to put in a lot of work. I know it's an underhanded way to make an argument. Sorry.

Don’t worry about it too much, I think Bechly cited a few. I’ll include all those citations when I get to his rebuttals of Farina.

This might be true but can a layperson really examine these options and come to a conclusion as to which one is correct?

Although this does complicate the argument with the professor a little, don't forget that Dennis Noble and the Third Way deny evolution by natural selection!

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/07/denis-...m-is-dead/

I don't think the professor realises there is the Third Way (and of course I had forgotten it).

It seems to me the data, let alone the options, are incredible in how detailed the biological domain is. If there are platonic forms, teleological principles, or morphic fields allow the search space of mutations to be narrowed down then those are also nonmaterialist alternatives to ID.

As with all things nonmaterialistic, I tend to think all the ideas ae in some sense equivalent, but it is best to choose the simplest explanation.

This isn't to say all Design would be false, Cosmic Fine Tuning could be true while evolution is just running its course without intervention by conscious entities.

I'm less interested in Cosmic Fine Tuning, because cosmology is one of those areas in which science may be greatly corrupted by bad science of various sorts.

Perhaps ID ultimately wins out, and maybe once I go through the back & forth between Farina and the Discovery Institute I'll lean toward Design at the biological Earth level just as I lean toward Design at the Cosmic level..

Does the prof contribute anything other than his fight with James Tour - i.e. actual research of his own? Judging from this:

https://www.davefarina.com/bio

I would say that he is simply milking YouTube for some fame and cash.

David