Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A toff from the World Science Festival wants us all to “stop believing in evolution”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here

Evolution is nothing more than a fairly simple way of understanding what is unquestionably happening. You don’t believe in it — you either understand it or you don’t. But pretending evolution is a matter of faith can be a clever way to hijack the conversation, and pit it in a false duality against religion. And that’s how we end up with people decrying evolution, even as they eat their strawberries and pet their dogs, because they’ve been led to believe faith can only be held in one or the other.

Excuse us, but it is people who created laws and policies that demand belief in explicitly Darwinian evolution who created this problem. Who wrecked careers of skeptics.

Not dogs or strawberries.

But there’s no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses. Reconciling is easy: Believe, if you want to, that God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders, along with the laws of physics, and probability, and everything else we can see and measure for ourselves. But don’t deny evolution itself, or gravity, or the roundness of Earth. That’s just covering your eyes and ears. And only monkeys would do that.

This is so disgustingly patronizing, it is hard to even know how to account for it.

1. There is currently a pit of corruption in science ( retracted papers, etc.). We don’t know what to believe any more.

2. On what basis are we to believe “God set up the rules of evolution among His wonders”?

3. Who denies gravity, or the roundness of Earth? More relevant: Who actually funds this rubbish? Whose taxpayers work to pay for it?

Turns out, an ad man wrote this stuff. Darwin boys, try again, but this time with someone serious.

Nothing will change until we can have a discussion Darwin’s claims, not just “evolution.”

Comments
' And only monkeys would do that.' Fair go. Blood is thicker than water... and if anyone would have a privileged insight into simian mores and thought-processes, it is surely our Darwinian friends. But what a two-faced 'snake in the grass' towards his own kith and kin.., trying to tout himself as somehow superior to a monkey, not just re fitness for survival, either!Axel
August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
anthropic @ 7, that is just plain cool! :) Found: The First Metal-Plated Syringe in a Living Creature - May 28, 2014 Excerpt: the insect's strange ovipositor—its egg-laying syringe—is partially metal-plated with zinc. While similar metallic amalgams have been hypothesized to exist in the ovipositors of other wasp species, this is the first ever confirmed. "There are many different challenges for this one tool," says Namrata Gundiah, a biomechanical engineer that led the research team. "It must be hard but flexible so that the female wasp can curve and bore it through the fig. And the wasp must be able to use it repeatedly and efficiently without it wearing down or fracturing." The size of the syringe-like tool presents another challenge. While it is twice the size of the waps's body, "this is only about 1/5th of the diameter of a human hair," says Lakshminath Kundanati, a biomechanical engineer with the research team. Such a thin tool should buckle under pressure, Kundanati says. But the researchers found that the wasp's tool is remarkable both in composition and shape. The syringe is metal-plated only at the end, which helps to form a sharp, rigid tip, Gundiah says, while the wire-like body of the syringe remains flexible. And when it pushes into the fruit, she says, the tip's serrated sides slide back and forth against each other like a pair of alternating stabbing swords, and several sharp rail-guides ensure the syringe stays its course.,,, Sutton, who was part of a team that discovered the first mechanical gear in (insects), says what is also fascinating about this discovery is that it was found in a very common insect. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/found-the-first-metal-plated-syringe-in-a-living-creature-16838120?click=pm_latestbornagain77
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
“But there’s no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses.”
Also, we would call it "mountains of evolutionary interpretation of the data" as opposed to "mountains of data." Creationists and evolutionists have the same data. It is the interpretation of the data that differs. AND, he claims we should not reject the "evidence of our own senses". Actually, I don't think he needs to worry about that. That is one of the big reasons that we actually do reject the evolutionary interpretations of the mountains of data. Common sense tells us that things do not naturally increase in order of complexity. Information does not create itself. Software does not write itself. Codes do not form themselves. Information processing systems do not just happen by chance. molecular motors do not design themselves. Chemicals do not form consciousness. etc. etc. etc.tjguy
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
“But there’s no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses.”
OK, here is my question for him: Does it take faith to believe in abiogenesis by purely natural forces? Of course it does! It is undeniable! No one really has any idea how it happened, or really IF it even happened. Life exists, but to use that fact as proof that abiogenesis occurred is a circular argument. A person might think that abiogenesis actually happened, but at this point, it is simply a belief! And the whole evolutionary paradigm depends on abiogenesis being true - but unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence for this! What if abiogenesis did not happen? What if God did create life? How would that impact our interpretation of the evidence we have about biological evolution itself? Buddhist doctrine says nothing whatsoever about creation so sure, no reason for people of Buddhist faith to reject this belief in evolution. He is really intending to speak to Christians, Muslims, and Jews who believe in the Creator God of the Bible, but we maintain that biological evolution also requires belief. Why? It is not possible to use the scientific method to verify evolution like you can do with normal science. We are dealing with history here. It cannot be observed, tested, repeated, or verified. We can gather information about the past that we have, but we cannot replay the past. This means that we must interpret the information and observations that we have. The interpretation might look good according to the evolutionary paradigm, but how can ever really know for sure? How can you really test it or falsify it? Evolutionary just so stories might sound reasonable, but until it is tested and verified, we just don't know. Therefore, it still requires belief. That is why BOTH evolution AND ID and/or CREATION require some level of faith.tjguy
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Faith is not the sole domain of religion. Great to hear the truth at last.Mung
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Dr JDD, Clearly an increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shennanigans involves a LOSS of information! ;) By the way, I'd love to hear another evolutionary Just So tale about how this parasitic wasp got its metal-plated syringe complete with control system... http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/found-the-first-metal-plated-syringe-in-a-living-creature-16838120?click=pm_latestanthropic
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Dr JDD, Interesting analogy using a hypothetical reaction S + E -> P to illustrate the potentially misleading conclusions from wrong extrapolations.Dionisio
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
I'm sure the former cheif editor of Maxim magazine is an authority on these things after all. I saw this article posted on social media among scientist atheistic friends, how they all "liked" it and made comments like "I particularly like how he compared not believing in evolution to not believing in the colour blue." I was so annoyed by the pathetic ignorance of this article that I was going to write a blog post on it (noone reads my blog thank goodness [apart from maybe my sister], it just allows me to vent) but alas I am too tired to be overly serious with such tripe. Before the Darwinists get on my back and say how dare I say it shows such ignorance, I am not even referring to the point about evolution being as true as the colour blue or not. I am referring to the complete ignorance in understanding those who say that they "do not believe in evolution." He does not even understand the argument yet he is the one being patronising and condescending. Poor little child. Here is a parallel. One person draws a graph of an experiment where they add a substrate (S) to an enzyme (E) they suspect produces a product (P). They add a very narrow range of concentrations of S to a fixed concentration of E. Something like a few points along a 10-fold concentration of S. The graph they draw is perfectly linear with strong positive correlation - an increase in S results in a likewise increase in P. They announce - "there is a linear relationship!" Another person comments - "I do not believe the relationship is truly linear." The original scientist angrily claims that they are wrong, it is plain for them to see before their own eyes, the graph shows, it is a truly linear response! But the other person calmly remarks that the concentrations of the substrate were too narrow to enable such a firm conclusion. In fact, as they are an enzymologist they know that normally the way enzyme kinetics can work is an apparent low/no response at very low [S], followed by a period of linear/exponential response following by a plateauing - as E is kept constant, the active sites become occupied and you reach a saturation point. So while in this small range of [S] which the person has observed does appear linear, everything else that we know about other stages of enzyme kinetics, at high and lower concentrations, suggests that the overall response is highly unlikely to be truly linear. It will be a dose-response type curve, or most likely, a Michaelis-Menton curve. In other words, you cannot simply or automatically extrapolate an observation in a small frame of reference and "know" or hence prove that the same thing is true to the extremities either side. Likewise, a very large proportion of people who say they "do not believe in evolution" are not appealing to the short small bit that is observed and can be measured - e.g. altering of existing information that leads to a selective advantage in one's environment. Their opposition is with macro-evolution, with evolution as an explanatory mechanism for the generation of new complex information and novel pathways and proteins that require multiple interactions and cascade events.They object to the appearance of complex multicellular organisms from single-celled organisms. They object to complex changes in bodyplans from the same genes that do not tolerate change (deleterios/embryonic lethal mutations). They object to the Cambrian explosion making sense with what we are told and can observe about evolution and the mechanisms of DNA mutation. They object to the complexities of the cell above the DNA (epigenetic information) fitting in with Darwinian theory. In other words, they have a far superior understanding of the problems with evolution (or how it is "meant" to work) than the author of this article linked here. That is the ignorance that I am highly resistant to and annoyed by - a failure to even understand where people who question evolution are coming from (and a failure to even understand evolution itself). It is back to the old equating "evolution" as a term, with alteration of existing information (micro-evolution) which most accept is a real thing. In fact, let us look how unintelligent this article is: <blockquote?It's remarkable how poorly understood evolution is today Yes, as the author clearly demonstrates in his own ignorance!
every dinosaur bone ever found providing a nonstop barrage of additional proof points
Like the blood cells and soft tissue found inside Dinosaur bones? But that aside, how in the world do Dinosaur bones attest to evolution - they just attest to a very impressive and large reptile-like creature we really do not understand (feathered? not? bird ancestor? not?) existed once and now extinct. Those bones don't prove evolution my friend!
This modified code can (but doesn't always) produce new traits in successive generations: an extra finger, sickle-celled blood, increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans.
Well done, you have stated that existing information can be modified. How about new information? Most of these things are actually loss of information and only allow for survival in a particular environment however the organism is weaker than the wild-type. Hardly like the ability to synthesise ATP from glucose, like we are led to believe happened randomly by chance. Why don't you address those issues rather than use an example of a single amino acid mutation causing messed up haemoglobin so people don't get affected by malaria. When did a single - or even 2 mutations lead to ATPsynthase from something different?
When these new traits are advantageous (longer legs in gazelles), organisms survive and replicate at a higher rate than average, and when disadvantageous (brittle skulls in woodpeckers), they survive and replicate at a lower rate.
Maybe you should learn about what deleterious means and that most mutations are that. Hard to survive and replicate when you have mutations in hox genes, for example.
It's that incredibly slow pace that makes it hard for people to grasp intuitively.
Ah yes, the old favoured weapon of choice for the Darwinist. "It was a very very long time." Yet again, fortunately with powerful computers (or just powerful common sense) we can do the mathematics. Behe did that recently. And was vindicated in his mathematics. How do you cope with probabilities that exceed the number of elementary particles in the universe my friend?
Take a stroll through any modern produce section and you can see the fruits, literally and figuratively, of evolution turbocharged by human intervention.
And this is what you think people who oppose evolution think of when they use the word evolution? Really, you are far more stupid than I actually thought. I can simplify things too: A strawberry has genetic information. You can breed it to express certain bits of that informtation (THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN ITS GENOME) and it will be bigger. Conversely, I could breed it in a way that will make it smaller (BY SELECTING FOR INFORMATION ALREADY IN ITS GENOME). Noone debates this. Pray tell, how is that evolution in the sense that ANYONE generally refers to it as? That is use of existing information. Where did that information that allows it to be bigger or smaller come from? Or have you not had the thought-capacity to actually engage in THAT question rather than the complete and utter lack of understanding of the debate?
So if someone asks, "Do you believe in evolution," they are framing it wrong. That's like asking, "Do you believe in blue?"
If I ask you the question, "Do you understand the debate of evolution versus ID?" I am framing it wrong. It's clearly a pointless question and would be rhetoric. Because you clearly do not understand why people opposed "evolution".
But there's no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses
I completely agree! The faith and religion of naturalism and atheism continue to reject the mountain of data and their own senses - there's no reason for it!Dr JDD
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Why do you call Keith Blanchard a "toff". Is it because he went to Princeton?Mark Frank
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
This part made me laugh: "But there’s no reason for people of faith to reject the mountains of data and the evidence of their own senses." What evidence? This is the whole problem, there isn't any. As for the evidence of my own senses, they tell me Darwin was a nut job, a very troubled individual who's dangerous and silly ideas are responsible for disastrous policies and loss of life. My senses also tell me that evolution is nothing more than pseudoscientific materialist propaganda/superstition with no scientific evidence whatsoever.humbled
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
The article is apparently aimed at people with less than a high school level understanding of biology but the headline is pure click bait. I have a much lower opinion of the curators at Real Clear Politics now for linking that article.Jehu
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Here are the rules, in a nutshell: • Genes, stored in every cell, are the body's blueprints; they code for traits like eye color, disease susceptibility, and a bazillion other things that make you you. • Reproduction involves copying and recombining these blueprints, which is complicated, and errors happen. • Errors are passed along in the code to future generations, the way a smudge on a photocopy will exist on all subsequent copies. • This modified code can (but doesn't always) produce new traits in successive generations: an extra finger, sickle-celled blood, increased tolerance for Miley Cyrus shenanigans. • When these new traits are advantageous (longer legs in gazelles), organisms survive and replicate at a higher rate than average, and when disadvantageous (brittle skulls in woodpeckers), they survive and replicate at a lower rate. Oh, of course. How could I be so stupid! Does this guy have a clue what the IDers concerns are? Has he bothered to look, or does he just have blind faith? But the bigger question, I guess, is why does he rate? Why does his magazine rate? Why would this simpleton even be given the time of day?Moose Dr
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply