Everyone seems to be debating Darwin’s Doubt

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 22, 2015

Books of interest, Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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):

—

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,290 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
- #1 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Creationism
- #2 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Paleontology

—

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!

Comments

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.ppolish_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

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".Upright BiPed_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

podcast: "Debating Darwin's Doubt: Casey Luskin on Classification of Organisms" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2015-07-22T10_21_23-07_00bornagain77_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Dr. Meyer is a scientist. Bill Nye is a science communicator.ppolish_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

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/2013/10/stephen_meyer_r077371.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/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.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/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.htmlbornagain77_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

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 . . .SLeBrun_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Was listening to some music recently which I thought would be much improved if the musicians stopped intervening.Mung_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

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.ppolish_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Bill Nye's new book is also included in the creationism category. Bill Nye the creationist guy.ppolish_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

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.SLeBrun_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

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 . . .SLeBrun_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

I suppose by labeling ID creationism, the arguments in Darwin's Doubt have been addressed and refuted.scottH_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

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!bornagain77_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

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.SLeBrun_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

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/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.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/articles/2011/09/did_darwin_believe_in_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/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X 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/2014/09/methodological_1089971.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)
bornagain77_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

"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.Silver Asiatic_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

If you think ID is creationism, then how did it end up in the science categories?Silver Asiatic_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

#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?SLeBrun_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

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/2015/07/hear_stephen_me097911.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/playlist?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_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=Vg8bqXGrRa0bornagain77_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply