Books of interest Culture Darwinism

Everyone seems to be debating Darwin’s Doubt

Spread the love

 

Debating Darwin’s Doubt

Hope some are reading it. I can’t help remembering when, just by way of illustration, Templeton grantees were meeping about whether they were even going to review Darwin’s Doubt, and of course pronounce themselves displeased by it, as they must.

And as if anyone cares now (6:00 am EST):

Sorry guys. The ship has sailed, and Christians for Darwin are not on it.

The rest of us, whoever we are, have a big mess to clean up when we land, shortly.

Gosh, I remember back to the days when Darwin’s mob wanted people to stop referring to the Cambrian explosion of life forms as an explosion. It might make people think that their god had failed.  Huh? What?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

49 Replies to “Everyone seems to be debating Darwin’s Doubt

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    For those who missed it, here is Stephen Meyer on Eric Metaxas’s show yesterday discussing the book “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” – podcast
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97911.html

    Here is Dr. Meyer, in 2013, on ‘Socrates In The City’ discussing ‘Darwin’s Doubt’

    Socrates in the City – “Darwin’s Doubt” Eric Metaxas with Stephen Meyer – video
    https://vimeo.com/81215936

    If anyone has not read Darwin’s Doubt yet, Dr. Paul Giem has done a chapter by chapter ‘cliff notes’ video series on the book here (as well as a critique of the reviews):

    Darwin’s Doubt – Paul Giem – video playlist
    http://www.youtube.com/playlis.....Ow3u0_mK8t

    Here Dr. Meyer responds to the critics of Darwin’s Doubt (some of which who actually read the book before criticizing it):

    Conversations with Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3oq-5NkSrGIIfCcpaKkOhT

    a few more notes:

    Dr. Meyer’s interview with C-SPAN’s BookTV, a fairly comprehensive overview of Darwin’s Doubt: Summer 2013
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZTzMNRO_7I

    Dr. Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design – video –
    (lecture delivered at Faith Bible Church – May 2014)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8bqXGrRa0

  2. 2
    SLeBrun says:

    #1 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism

    IF ID is not a form of creationism are you sure you want to promote this ranking?

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If you think ID is creationism, then how did it end up in the science categories?

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    “There is no weakness in the theory of evolution,” according to Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.

    “There is no debate about evolution,” as physicist and theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson puts it.

    Good quotes – especially the first one.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    SLeBrun, in you blanket sneer at ‘Theology’ and ‘Creationism’, it might interest you to know, (besides the fact that science itself is dependent on Theological presuppositions) that Darwinism itself is dependent upon Theological premises as to how God would and would not create:

    The Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):

    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    “Though denying that God had a direct hand in creating species, he (Darwin) did nonetheless indicate that God created the natural laws of the cosmos, including the laws of evolutionary development. He also interpolated a statement about a Creator breathing life into one or a few (primitive) organisms into the 1860 edition of Origin.”
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....n_god.html

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    Abstract
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/.....741100032X

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000)

  6. 6
    SLeBrun says:

    SLeBrun, in you blanket sneer at ‘Theology’ and ‘Creationism’, it might interest you to know, (besides the fact that science itself is dependent on Theological presuppositions) that Darwinism itself is dependent upon Theological premises as to how God would and would not create:

    I was pointing out that a) Amazon put Debating Darwin’s Doubt into a Creationist category and b) I’m not sure ‘News’ really wants to publicise that.

    (I think ID is serial creationism but that’s because I think most ID proponents buy into a non-front loading design paradigm wherein the designer has intervened many times in the history of life. I know some have different thoughts on that but because there is no consensus amongst the ID community I’m going to assume a version that I think is most popular.)

    I could be wrong. Maybe ‘News’ thinks it okay that one of the biggest booksellers on the planet thinks ID is Creationism. I guess ‘News’ can respond if she wants to.

    If you think ID is creationism, then how did it end up in the science categories?

    I have no idea what decision making process Amazon has for cataloging books. Maybe they want to make sure all the ID supporters can find the book easily when they look at the categories they think the book should be listed in? Or maybe they’re hoping people like ‘News’ will grab their stats and publicise them on blogs which will raise sales. I don’t think Amazon cares one way or another, they just want to sell stuff.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    SLeBrun, and why does it not bother you, presumably an materialistic atheist, that Darwinism itself is dependent of ‘Creationist’, i.e. Theological, presuppositions?

    If you were truly concerned with the truth of the matter, instead of just playing rhetorical games, this dependency on Theology should make you, again presumably an atheist, severely question your belief in the ‘science’ of Darwinism.

    But alas, rigorous honesty towards the actual evidence at hand is something that is in very much short supply for neo-Darwinists!

  8. 8
    scottH says:

    I suppose by labeling ID creationism, the arguments in Darwin’s Doubt have been addressed and refuted.

  9. 9
    SLeBrun says:

    SLeBrun, and why does it not bother you, presumably an materialistic atheist, that Darwinism itself is dependent of ‘Creationist’, i.e. Theological, presuppositions?

    Because I don’t think the truth of modern evolutionary theory depends on any theological presuppositions.

    If you were truly concerned with the truth of the matter, instead of just playing rhetorical games, this dependency on Theology should make you, again presumably an atheist, severely question your belief in the ‘science’ of Darwinism.

    Hey, if there is no god then guess what? All your theology and posturing is just so much hot air. And, as I’ve said, I don’t think you need to make any theological assumptions to show that modern evolutionary synthesis is correct in general. It’s not finished yet!!

    But alas, rigorous honesty towards the actual evidence at hand is something that is in very much short supply for neo-Darwinists!

    In your opinion. I’ll stick with the multiple threads of mutually supporting data.

    If you find your designer and/or evidence of the design process or design implementation then that would be very interesting. But you’re not going to magic a designer into existing by making some armchair arguments and conjectures.

    And you still abjectly refuse to discuss your academic qualifications or background. Shall I take that to mean that they are not in the biological sciences? ‘Cause you would say so if they were wouldn’t you?

    What are you so afraid of I wonder . . .

  10. 10
    SLeBrun says:

    I suppose by labeling ID creationism, the arguments in Darwin’s Doubt have been addressed and refuted

    I wouldn’t say that at all. Whatever is in the book will have to be addressed specifically. I haven’t read the book so I won’t comment. I’m sure there will be reviews up soon though. Usually the usual suspects read such things and review them.

    It all depends on what is written and what references are used to back up the statements. Assuming the references are used correctly of course.

  11. 11
    ppolish says:

    Bill Nye’s new book is also included in the creationism category. Bill Nye the creationist guy.

  12. 12
    ppolish says:

    The science in “Darwin’s Doubt” is spectacular and well referenced. The science in Nye’s “Undeniable” is a joke haha. Nye should also be classified as fiction.

  13. 13
    Mung says:

    Was listening to some music recently which I thought would be much improved if the musicians stopped intervening.

  14. 14
    SLeBrun says:

    The science in “Darwin’s Doubt” is spectacular and well referenced. The science in Nye’s “Undeniable” is a joke haha. Nye should also be classified as fiction.

    Perhaps you’d like to cite something particular Bill Nye wrote and we’ll see if it stands up to scrutiny.

    Darwin’s Doubt has already been widely reviewed by people who work in the field and found to be very, very lacking. Perhaps you’d like to take one of those reviews and find a specific scientific fault with it . . .

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Perhaps you’d like to take one of those reviews and find a specific scientific fault with it . .

    You got all day to go over the ‘scientific’ faults of the reviews?

    Darwin’s Doubt – Reviews 1 1-4-2014 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW8SLKoSZqM&index=15&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t

    Stephen Meyer Answers Charles Marshall (Peer Reviewed Paper) on Darwin’s Doubt – October 2013 (4 part response)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77371.html

    Here Dr. Meyer responds to the critics of Darwin’s Doubt (some of which who actually read the book before criticizing it):

    Conversations with Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3oq-5NkSrGIIfCcpaKkOhT

    And let’s not forget ‘hopeless Matzke’:

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    Excerpt: The relationship between cladistics and Darwin’s theory of evolution is thus one of independent origin but convergent confusion. “Phylogenetic systematics,” the entomologist Michael Schmitt remarks, “relies on the theory of evolution.” To the extent that the theory of evolution relies on phylogenetic systematics, the disciplines resemble two biologists dropped from a great height and clutching at one another in mid-air.

    Tight fit, major fail.7

    No wonder that Schmidt is eager to affirm that “phylogenetics does not claim to prove or explain evolution whatsoever.”8 If this is so, a skeptic might be excused for asking what it does prove or might explain?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

  16. 16
    ppolish says:

    Dr. Meyer is a scientist. Bill Nye is a science communicator.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    podcast: “Debating Darwin’s Doubt: Casey Luskin on Classification of Organisms”
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_23-07_00

  18. 18
    Upright BiPed says:

    Perhaps you’d like to cite something particular Bill Nye wrote and we’ll see if it stands up to scrutiny.

    Sure.

    Bill Nye: “With the right raw materials, under the right conditions, life could happen anywhere”.

  19. 19
    ppolish says:

    More wisdom from Mr Nye: “We Suck!”
    https://t.co/AhRciG6Ibo

    Speak for yourself, Bill. Dr Meyer does not suck. Very special carbon based life form is Stephen.

  20. 20
    SLeBrun says:

    Perhaps you’d like to take one of those reviews and find a specific scientific fault with it . .

    Do you really want me to critique some youtube videos and posts by The Discovery Institute? Really? That’s the best you’ve got.

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahha

    Go on, pick one in particular and I’ll have a look.

    <blockquote>Dr. Meyer is a scientist. Bill Nye is a science communicator.

    Tell me some of Dr Meyer’s academic publications. What research has he published? What investigations is he involved with?

    Bill Nye IS a communicator. Clearly. Something I admire very much. When it’s done correctly. Did you notice that recently Bill changed his mind about GMOs? He learns, he listens, even to people he thought he disagreed with. Does Stephen Meyer do that? Has Dr Meyer ever, once admitted that one of his critics had a valid point? In fact, has ID modified its stance in the face of new data . . . ever?

  21. 21
    SLeBrun says:

    Bill Nye: “With the right raw materials, under the right conditions, life could happen anywhere”.

    And your objection is what exactly? He did say ‘could’ so . . .

    If your claim is that life was created specifically, in one place at one time for one purpose then I think you’ve got a lot of proving to do.

    Bill Nye is just saying that, as far as we’ve been able to establish, how life seemingly got started on Earth could happen again elsewhere easily.

    If you’re going to object then you have to be more specific.

  22. 22
    Upright BiPed says:

    Nye was talking about Stanley Miller cooking up amino acids in the lab. From this, he extrapolates with the right raw materials life could happen anywhere.

    Is this the kind of scientific extrapolation you suggest “can stand up to scrutiny”?

    One wonders is anything important was glossed over.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    SLeBrun

    “Go on, pick one in particular and I’ll have a look”

    Well, you can pick the ball up where Marshall’s peer reviewed critique failed on Gene Regulatory Networks.

    Stephen Meyer Answers Charles Marshall’s (Peer Reviewed Paper) on Darwin’s Doubt – October 2013 (4 part response)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....77371.html

    Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqYUoRVswRY&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3oq-5NkSrGIIfCcpaKkOhT&index=6

    of note: Opinions are a dime a dozen! So please do provide proper references to refute Meyer’s claim!

  24. 24
    SLeBrun says:

    Opinions are a dime a dozen! So please do provide proper references to refute Meyer’s claim!

    Meyer’s claim as made through a youtube video? Or a Discovery Institute blog?

    hahahahahahahahaahha

    Okay, I’ll work on it. But it’s late where I live so I’m going to go to bed first.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    “Okay, I’ll work on it. But it’s late where I live so I’m going to go to bed first.”

    In all your interactions on UD today you have made grand claims for neo-Darwinism and have not cited even one peer-reviewed article to support your position.

    Thus, if you take up the challenge to show us where developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs) come from, it will be expected of you to back up your claims with peer-review from now on.

    I really have much better things to do than to be insulted by an atheistic troll who thinks his opinion, and derogatory comments, are all that are needed to settle an issue and who neglects peer-review as grossly as you have done so far.

  26. 26
    Virgil Cain says:

    Modern evolutionary theory- heh- can’t even be put into a coherent thesis. It has to be gleaned by reading several books. And that makes it subjective.

    Also, to be science, it requires a means of quantification- something beyond population genetics- in order to be considered scientific.

    “We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred and all we need to do is fill in the details”- paraphrasing Ernst Mayr. Doesn’t sound like a scientific theory to me.

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    SLeBrun:

    Darwin’s Doubt has already been widely reviewed by people who work in the field and found to be very, very lacking.

    Those people who work in the field don’t have any evidence to support their claims. It is very telling that all of their criticisms lack that required component.

  28. 28
    Ray Martinez says:

    SLeBrun msg #14:
    Darwin’s Doubt has already been widely reviewed by people who work in the field and found to be very, very lacking.

    All staunch Darwinists who have staked their scientific careers on the sufficiency of natural selection. You don’t know that?

  29. 29
    Mapou says:

    SLeBrun is a typical Darwinist buffoon, a troll. Why even converse with the jackass? Inquiring minds and all that.

  30. 30
    ppolish says:

    SLeBrun will be happy to learn that Nye has retaken the #1 spot in Amazon “Creationism” category. Pseudoscience outselling real science. But I think many are buying the Nye book to goof on. Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt”, at #2, is hard science. But very readable. Very re readable actually. Thank you Stephen:)
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/bests.....b_2_4_last

  31. 31
    anthropic says:

    I checked Amazon and the book is not yet for sale. However, two reviewers panned it anyway. Apparently they, like our friend here, don’t need to read and understand an argument in order to discard it as unworthy of consideration.

  32. 32
    SLeBrun says:

    Thus, if you take up the challenge to show us where developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs) come from, it will be expected of you to back up your claims with peer-review from now on.

    Actually, if you go back up to comment 20 I agreed to critique one of the reviews you cited in comment 15. You dodged that and then asked me if I’d like to answer some other question. It was late last night when I agreed to your goal-post moving challenge. While I am happy to look over one of the reviews you cited I am not expert enough to take on your second challenge. I won’t pretend to defend something I’m not an expert on.

    I really have much better things to do than to be insulted by an atheistic troll who thinks his opinion, and derogatory comments, are all that are needed to settle an issue and who neglects peer-review as grossly as you have done so far.

    Gee, for a moment there I thought you were talking about Virgil/Joe and Mapou. As in this statement:

    SLeBrun is a typical Darwinist buffoon, a troll. Why even converse with the jackass? Inquiring minds and all that.

    Exactly, why talk to people who disagree with you, who sometimes ask questions that you don’t want to answer and so dodge or ignore them? Don’t talk about your own academic qualifications or research or background. Don’t show any of your own publications or works. Keep posting lengthy posts full of references to youtube videos and Discovery Institute blog entries.

    All staunch Darwinists who have staked their scientific careers on the sufficiency of natural selection. You don’t know that?

    That is a strawman myth. Every scientist I’ve know would LOVE to find fault with some commonly held belief. That would make them amazingly famous and they’d earn a lot more money.

    I checked Amazon and the book is not yet for sale. However, two reviewers panned it anyway. Apparently they, like our friend here, don’t need to read and understand an argument in order to discard it as unworthy of consideration.

    I clearly said I WILL NOT comment on a book I haven’t read (comment 10). Jeeze louise, do you guys even read what’s already been said? I have spent a lot of time trying to understand what ID proponents are saying. It’s tricky because no one agrees when design was implemented or how. No one can point to a specific physical mechanism by which the development of life on earth was affected by a designer. And no one has defined or detected the magical designer.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    SLeBrun at 9 you state

    “I don’t think the truth of modern evolutionary theory depends on any theological presuppositions.”

    What you think is wrong!
    You were shown two peer-reviewed references to the contrary. Your denial of facts in evidence is thus duly noted.
    Darwinism was founded upon (bad) theological presuppositions and continues to be dependent upon (bad) theological presuppositions:

    Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY
    Abstract
    This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science.
    http://journals.cambridge.org/.....741100032X

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    Abstract
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

    That Darwinism is dependent upon faulty theological presuppositions is not surprising since, number 1, Darwin’s college degree was not in math, or anything like that, but Darwin’s college degree was in liberal Christian Theology, (Anglican I believe).

    The Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – Pastor Joe Boot – video – 16:30 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

    In fact, Darwin said that he found mathematics to be repugnant!

    “During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh & at school. I attempted mathematics, & even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra.”
    Charles Darwin, 1887 – Recollections of the Development of my Mind & Character, the work which Darwin himself referred to as his autobiography

    “For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.”
    Gregory Chaitin – Highly Respected Mathematician

    And number 2, all of modern science is dependent upon Theological presuppositions. In fact, modern science was born specifically out of Judeo-Christian metaphysics and not out of any other worldview’s metaphysics. It was especially not born out of atheistic metaphysics which presupposes no rhyme or reason to the world

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/.....ffd524.pdf

    That modern science was not born out of atheistic metaphysics is not surprising since any epistemology based upon materialistic/atheistic premises winds up in epistemological failure:

    Faith vs. Fact: Jerry Coyne’s flawed epistemology
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-571809

  34. 34
    JimFit says:

    SLeBrun

    i will speak of me

    No one can point to a specific physical mechanism by which the development of life on earth was affected by a designer.

    It doesn’t work that way, you seem to believe that the physical laws that were created by God had to be affected by God to see design, that doesn’t show an Omniscience God, an Omnisciece God created this chain of events from scratch for life to arise, he didn’t had to “affect” these laws because we exist because of these laws. An atheist and a theist will look at the past and they will see that there are only physical laws, the atheist will say that there are only physics and therefor God, a Cosmic Consciousness that started all this chain doesn’t exist, well we don’t live in an eternal universe to support that anymore, everything physical around us had an absolute beginning before 14 billion years and that makes everything by definition a creation.

    If God doesn’t exist either the Universe popped out of Nothingness or existed past eternally, scenario one, the Universe came out of pure Nothingness uncaused, that scenario is magical, it would destroy Science, scenario two, the Universe existed past eternally in that form or another or in a multiverse, that scenario makes the Universe unintelligibleness, there would be always a cause prior to the cause to past infinity. You can’t learn something that is by definition endless so the atheists can’t claim that they want to exchange God with metaphysical materialism to understand the world around them because metaphysical materialism destroys science and wishes for an eternal universe that cannot be known, ever.

    And no one has defined or detected the magical designer.

    That’s like asking to detect my consciousness, i can move my hands, yell, kick you but you still won’t detect my consciousness as an entity, God is transcendent, you can see God through this chain of events aka the fact that there is something instead of nothing.

    This playlist will help you understand what matter is and how it is affected by the observer

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

  35. 35
    Virgil Cain says:

    SLe:

    It’s tricky because no one agrees when design was implemented or how.

    That has nothing to do with ID. And evolutionism cannot answer when or how so obviously that isn’t a requirement even though evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how.

  36. 36
    SLeBrun says:

    That’s like asking to detect my consciousness, i can move my hands, yell, kick you but you still won’t detect my consciousness as an entity, God is transcendent, you can see God through this chain of events aka the fact that there is something instead of nothing.

    I know very little of theology so I won’t try to argue about that. BUT I don’t see how you can implement design without physically interacting with the world in some capacity which my consciousness cannot do on its own. You gotta have a physical method and equipment to affect genomes.

    That has nothing to do with ID. And evolutionism cannot answer when or how so obviously that isn’t a requirement even though evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how.

    Fossils and mutations rates give milestones along the ‘tree’ of life so that handles the ‘when’ of evolutionary theory pretty well. How is various forms of selection, genetic drift, etc acting on descent with modification. Just because you refuse to accept the power of cumulative selection being fed with variation doesn’t mean a) that it doesn’t work and b) that evolutionary hasn’t addressed the issues.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    SLeBrun states:

    BUT I don’t see how you can implement design without physically interacting with the world in some capacity which my consciousness cannot do on its own. You gotta have a physical method and equipment to affect genomes.

    Although humans are limited in their capacity to effect the material world directly with their consciousness, without the help of their bodies, the fact that consciousness is real, and can effect the material world, has extensive evidence backing it up:

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....super.html

    Materialism of the Gaps – Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) – January 29, 2009
    Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It’s notable that many of the leading neuroscientists — Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet — were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....15901.html

    Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs – 2010
    Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
    http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

    The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video
    The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

    The Case for the Soul: Refuting Physicalist Objections – video
    Computers vs. Qualia, Libet and ‘Free won’t’, Split Brain (unified attention of brain despite split hemispheres, visual and motion information is shared between the two hemispheres despite the hemispheres being split),
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB5TNrtu9Pk

    Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,,
    the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
    http://www.tunedbody.com/scien.....ges-genes/

    Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:

    Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012
    Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.
    http://www.deanradin.com/paper.....0final.pdf

    Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern –
    Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme – December 2013
    Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,.
    The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies.
    http://deanradin.com/evidence/.....ys2013.pdf

    Moreover, God, being infinite in knowlege and power, is not nearly as limited in his ability to effect material reality with his consciousness as we are:

    A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    SLeBrun states

    Fossils and mutations rates give milestones along the ‘tree’ of life so that handles the ‘when’ of evolutionary theory pretty well.

    Actually SLeBrun, contrary to what you have been misled to believe, the fossil record and mutation rates are not nearly as conducive to Darwinian presuppositions as you think:

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

    , as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

    The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

    But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.

    The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion – ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (Disparity preceding Diversity) – infographic
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    The Cambrian Explosion – Stephen Meyer and Marcus Ross – video
    Various phylum are discussed in the first part of the video (Top down, disparity preceding diversity, pattern discussed at 33:00 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLpSb-iDNyw

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73671.html

    Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    As to mutation rates, i.e. molecular clocks:

    Fudging Evolution to Avoid Falsification – March 12, 2015
    Evolutionary theory follows Finagle’s Rule #4: “Draw your curves, then plot your data.”
    Excerpt: “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” David Reich of Harvard said at a recent meeting where no consensus was reached. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.” The solution for some has been to invoke “rate heterogeneity”: mutations rates that speed up or slow down as needed to keep the theory intact. –
    http://crev.info/2015/03/fudging-evolution/

    Evolution Makes No Sense on This Molecular Clock Problem – Cornelius Hunter – June 15, 2015
    Excerpt: The theory-laden measurements are based on evolutionary theory. The theory-neutral measurements do not entail evolutionary thinking. In other words, making measurements based on evolutionary theory leads to problems. The resulting DNA mutation rates are not even close to what we can measure more directly, free from theoretical assumptions.
    As is often the case, these discrepancies between the evidence and the theory leave evolutionists unsure and of differing opinions. As one evolutionist admitted:
    “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us, It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-this.html

    Paper Suggests Catch 22: Neo-Darwinism Faces Either a Massive Molecular Clock Misfire, or a Major Biogeographical Conundrum – Casey Luskin December 20, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92171.html

    Also see Darwin’s Doubt for a more thorough critique of molecular clocks. Here is a short review:

    Review: Darwin’s Doubt: – Rich Deem
    Molecular Clock: Based upon the concept of a molecular clock in the genetic sequences of key genes of Cambrian ancestors, scientists have attempted to calculate the time at which these hypothetical ancestors must have evolved. Since the fossil record failed to demonstrate these pre-Cambrian ancestors, scientists had hoped to raise doubt on the brevity of the Cambrian explosion. Calculations based upon a molecular clock showed that these hypothetical ancestors must have arisen a billion or more years ago (half a billion before the Cambrian explosion). However, there isn’t even a hint of multicellularity that far back, even though we can find fossil evidence of single-celled organisms as far back as 3.5 billion years ago. Molecular clocks based upon different proteins in different studies produce divergence dates that vary by more than 1 billion years. Hence, the accuracy of such studies must be questioned.
    http://www.godandscience.org/e.....doubt.html

    Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics – Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca
    Abstract: Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”.. For historians and philosophers of science the questions that arise are how belief in the infallibility of molecular data for reconstructing evolutionary relationships emerged, and how this belief became so central …
    http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/artic.....clocks.pdf

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Michael Medved, Stephen Meyer, Alex Berezow discussing evolution and intelligent design. – video – just loaded
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8CDBncw68o

  41. 41
    Mapou says:

    LeBrun:

    Fossils and mutations rates give milestones along the ‘tree’ of life so that handles the ‘when’ of evolutionary theory pretty well.

    The fossil record does show the evolution of design and a mostly nested tree of life. But this is a direct result of design over time.

    Mutations you say? What a joke. The biggest problem with evolution via random mutations and natural selection (this is something that anybody who has ever played with GAs can tell you) is that the combinatorial explosion kills it dead in its track as soon as you want to do something just a little bit more complex than the usual kid stuff. This is the reason that GAs are not used in anything but toy applications.

    With thousands of genes and billions of DNA letters, the combinatorial explosion is so huge that, having a computer trillions of trillions of times the size of the universe would be no better than having a Commodore 64. And that’s just one of the many problems that plague Darwinism. You morons need to learn some basic math.

    How is various forms of selection, genetic drift, etc acting on descent with modification. Just because you refuse to accept the power of cumulative selection being fed with variation doesn’t mean a) that it doesn’t work and b) that evolutionary hasn’t addressed the issues.

    Accept the power? You got to be kidding. You people have a lame donkey in this race. It’s dead right in the gates before the race even begins. All the other horses are laughing at it. Why are you people so stupid?

  42. 42
    tjguy says:

    Scott says to SLeBrun:

    “I suppose by labeling ID creationism, the arguments in Darwin’s Doubt have been addressed and refuted.”

    SLeBrun says:

    “I wouldn’t say that at all. Whatever is in the book will have to be addressed specifically.

    Sounds fair to me.

    SL continues:

    I haven’t read the book so I won’t comment. I’m sure there will be reviews up soon though. Usually the usual suspects read such things and review them.

    It all depends on what is written and what references are used to back up the statements. Assuming the references are used correctly of course.”

    I see. It is clear that SLeBrun simply relies on whatever his atheist heroes say. He doesn’t read the book himself. He just regurgitates their so called “rebuttal”.

    What sounded fair is revealed to be bull by this post:

    “Do you really want me to critique some youtube videos and posts by The Discovery Institute? Really? That’s the best you’ve got.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahha”

    And again:

    “Meyer’s claim as made through a youtube video? Or a Discovery Institute blog?

    hahahahahahahahaahha”

    Hmmm….

    So, Scott was right after all when he said:

    “I suppose by labeling ID creationism, the arguments in Darwin’s Doubt have been addressed and refuted.”

  43. 43
    Silver Asiatic says:

    SL

    I haven’t read the book so I won’t comment.

    You should read it.

    SL: I clearly said I WILL NOT comment on a book I haven’t read

    But you did comment on it …

    SL: Darwin’s Doubt has already been widely reviewed by people who work in the field and found to be very, very lacking.

    You said nothing about the people who work in the field who found it to be excellent.

    Bill Nye is just saying that, as far as we’ve been able to establish, how life seemingly got started on Earth could happen again elsewhere easily.

    Not ‘elsewhere’ but ‘anywhere’. When you start changing the quoted text, its an indicator of a bias or agenda at work.

    Tell me some of Dr Meyer’s academic publications. What research has he published? What investigations is he involved with?

    Have you done any research on this yourself?

    And, as I’ve said, I don’t think you need to make any theological assumptions to show that modern evolutionary synthesis is correct in general.

    Do you think the universe was brought into existence by chance?

    How do you explain the finely-tuned constants in the universe that make life possible on earth? How did they come into existence?

  44. 44
    Virgil Cain says:

    SLe:

    Fossils and mutations rates give milestones along the ‘tree’ of life so that handles the ‘when’ of evolutionary theory pretty well.

    Please link to this “evolutionary theory” so we can see what it actually says.

    How is various forms of selection, genetic drift, etc acting on descent with modification.

    Too vague to be science.

    Just because you refuse to accept the power of cumulative selection being fed with variation doesn’t mean a) that it doesn’t work and b) that evolutionary hasn’t addressed the issues.

    Just because you ar5e a gullible fool doesn’t mean we have to be.

    BTW, ID is not anti-evolution.

  45. 45
    ppolish says:

    “Do you think the universe was brought into existence by chance?”

    And how did chance come into existence, How were probabilities created. Many things instead of nothing. Even Oops Theory needs Creator. Alpha & Omega.

  46. 46
    Mapou says:

    ppolish:

    “Do you think the universe was brought into existence by chance?”

    And how did chance come into existence, How were probabilities created. Many things instead of nothing. Even Oops Theory needs Creator. Alpha & Omega.

    Good point. There are things (physical matter) that can be created and destroyed. There are also things (spiritual matter) that can neither be created nor destroyed. They just are.

  47. 47
    Silver Asiatic says:

    And how did chance come into existence, How were probabilities created.

    Exactly. Chance can only exist in contrast to order.

    If chance produced ordered regularity, it wouldn’t be chance.

    Why aren’t all probabilities simply zero, or simply one? That is, nothing “could” happen. Everything always must and does and did happen.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    podcast – “Debating Darwin’s Doubt: Casey Luskin on Charles Marshall’s Review in Science”
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....5_37-07_00

  49. 49
    Robert Byers says:

    great to see the book is doing well and another brick at the wall.
    Its the summer read for thinking people. i think its brings even more credibility to doubt about evolution etc for the public.
    The people can its well thought out and well said and well done.
    This alone makes people think and question the establishment.
    for those already darwin deniers it just adds intellectual punch.
    Its almost sad to see the bad guys taking such hits. Almost. However important error must be corrected and get her done.

Leave a Reply