Vox Day on canceling Darwin

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 14, 2020

Culture, Darwinism}

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

Vox Day has noticed the same story about the possible cancellation of Darwin that we did:

It will be ironic if Charles Darwin is not ejected from his lofty status as a secular scientific saint by scientific and mathematical criticsm, but by the ignorant baying of the savage mob:
Vox Day, “Canceling Darwin” at Vox Popoli

One got the impression years ago that the Darwinians never really thought there was any chance it could happen to them. However, Darwin may not have been doing for others as much as he was doing for them and they never stopped to think about it.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: Darwinian wonders: Will Darwin survive the purge? Carl admits that “Up until now, Darwin has been considered something of a hero on the political left… In short, all that dynamite (Darwin’s racism) was lying around, just waiting for someone to find it and make an issue of it—but the Darwinians didn’t want to deal with it themselves in case doing so complicated their culture war? Oh my.

Comments

You think there is an alphanumeric code inside cells???? You think there are little As, little Ts, little Gs, little Cs in there??? Those are labels for chemicals dude there aren’t any little tiny letters and numbers in there. Wow.Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

RP, I have only mentioned Creationism in the context of a distinction that needs to be recognised but has been deliberately obscured for illegitimate ideological reasons, exploiting media access. Creationism, relevant sense, is about Biblical interpretation taken as report of One who was there, God. The design inference issue -- which is where my interest has been -- is different, inherently inductive and evidence based: are there intelligible, observable signs of intelligently directed configuration as key causal factor for entities, systems, networks, processes? This can be and is investigated scientifically all the time, e/g. signal/noise metrics are key in communication systems. The issue is, on origins, we were not there and so infer a more or less plausible to us model on traces we can observe. To do so we need to have an observational and analytic base for causal factors and their traces. We have that, and machine code with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery have been manifest in cell biology for decades. Alphanumeric code, algorithms, execution machinery in the heart of life. Language. Decisive. Where, lies . . . yes, lies . . . about re-labelling Creationism only tell me about the ideological, deceitful nature of those who concoct such tales then use them to poison minds and distract from what is actually decisive. Alphanumeric, linguistic, algorithmic code. In the heart of the cell. Signature of design. KF PS: here is the book you need to see: https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdfkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes accomplishes nothing. No one uses it because the premise is untestable and as such outside of science. It doesn't produce any testable hypotheses. It doesn't produce any predictions beyond change and stasis. It doesn't help any research. So why do people still adhere to it?ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

By RP's logic evolutionism = atheism because Dawkins says so- Will Provine also said it.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

RP:
Kairosfocus, creationism accomplishes nothing.
That is your ignorant opinion, anyway.
I can name you individual scientists who published more last year than the intelligent design movement.
They did NOT publish anything that supports blind and mindless processes ability to create specified and complex structures. It still remains that the claims of ID remain unrefuted. And all it takes to refute ID's claims is for someone to step up and demonstrate blind and mindless processes can produce it. There is a reason why there still isn't any scientific theory of evolution.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." -Philip JohnsonRetired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, creationism accomplishes nothing. If you just rename creationism it’s still scientifically barren. I can name you individual scientists who published more last year than the intelligent design movement. That’s not a successful research program. The Intelligent Design movement publishes approximately the same number of papers as the astrologers do. The father of intelligent design was a creationist lawyer who came up with a legal strategy to try to get creationism in the classroom. It failed.Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

daves:
Whatever the ultimate origins of ID are, the current incarnation is certainly blessed with a colorful cast of characters.
At least we ain't a bunch of desperate, pathological liars that our opponents are.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

RP, protein assembling, edited and sometimes interwoven code, fed into Ribosomes as transfer machines using tRNA position-arm devices, with start, elongate in particular ways, stop, then fold etc. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Earth to Retired Physicist- Intelligent Design is still the only viable scientific explanation for our existence. You have to be a desperate moron to think ID hasn't gone anywhere due copying errors in a ROUGH draft of a book And it still also remains that "Of Pandas and People" was not responsible for anyone converting to ID. It is irrelevant to the ID of the 21st century.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

RP, kindly see 32 above on key history of ideas. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

KF, Whatever the ultimate origins of ID are, the current incarnation is certainly blessed with a colorful cast of characters. :-)daveS_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Oh heck. I just learned about cdesign proponentsists. Wow. Well, that explains why ID hasn’t gone anywhere.Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Alphanumeric? What on Earth are you talking about?Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Ds/EG/RP, actually, no. The first founder was Fred Hoyle and the second was a research circle, Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, in The Mystery of Life's Origin. The time was C1980 - 84. Denton was a parallel development, 1985. Johnson came along later, pulling together people and arguing about reasoning. Behe, Dembski and co were later still. But fundamentally the decisive issue dates to the 40's and 50's, fine tuned cosmos sets stage and on it we find alphanumeric, algorithmic code in the heart of the cell. Language. Game over. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Based on the reasoning of some of our regular interlocutors here I think understanding what ID’ists are really claiming is very relevant to the present discussion. ID’ists do not reject the idea of natural causation a priori. Indeed, much of what we perceive in the natural world can be (indeed should be) explained “naturally.” What we do reject is that natural causes are the only kind of causes that could be used to explain the origin and evolution of life. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe asks,
“Might there be an as yet undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers… In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring the evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of detective who ignore the elephant.” (p. 203-204)
Basically Behe is asking, if biochemical complexity (irreducible complexity) evolved by some natural process x, how did it evolve? That is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. Notice that even though in DBB Behe was criticizing Neo-Darwinism he is not ruling out a priori some other mindless natural evolutionary process, “x”, might be able to explain IC. Behe is simply claiming that at the present there is no known natural process that can explain how irreducibly complex mechanisms and processes originated. If he and other ID’ist are categorically wrong then our critics need to provide the step-by-step-by-step empirical explanation of how they originated, not just speculation and wishful thinking. Unfortunately our regular interlocutors seem to only be able to provide the latter not the former. Behe made another point which is worth keeping in mind.
“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”
In other words, a strongly held metaphysical belief is not a scientific explanation.john_a_designer_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

F/N: Plato:
Athenian Stranger: [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . [[I]f impious discourses were not scattered, as I may say, throughout the world, there would have been no need for any vindication of the existence of the Gods-but seeing that they are spread far and wide, such arguments are needed; and who should come to the rescue of the greatest laws, when they are being undermined by bad men, but the legislator himself? . . . . Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
360 BC. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Huh. I just looked it up. Looks like it was written by several Discovery Institute people.Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

No one in the world was convinced of ID because of "Of Pandas and People". The book is irrelevant to ID. That ID's loser critics keep bringing it up just exposes their ignorance and desperation.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Copy/Paste errors?Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

ET,
Phil Johnson was considered to be the father of the MODERN Intelligent Design movement.
And that's where the wedge document and copy/paste errors come in. 😛daveS_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design encompasses many things and its origin goes back to ancient times but was obviously not called that then. ID primarily has to do with origins. First the origin of the universe. then the origin of life, then the origin of complex forms of life. It also has looked at other origins such as the origin of Earth and consciousness, specifically humans This goes back to the beginning of time when people speculated on various forms of creators who were responsible for these things. The Greeks, Romans and several ancient civilizations held these beliefs so essentially they were creationists. There have been thousands of different types of creationists since the beginning of time but none are necessarily what we call ID today, including modern versions of creationism. If something has a plausible explanation as the result of natural processes, ID will usually not challenge it though some who endorse ID will. Because some who endorse ID will challenge the natural origin of entities does not mean that that ID does. By the way Richard Dawkins endorsed ID in his interview with Ben Stein several years ago when he said if there was proof of some ancient intelligence in the universe it would explain life.
Ben Stein: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution. Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe Ben Stein: But, but Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point.
It is a mistake to conflate ID with challenges to Darwin or naturalized mechanisms that supposedly explain changes in life forms over time especially the origin of complex life forms. It is one aspect of ID and far from all it encompasses. In the above Dawkins and Stein were referring to origin of life issues.jerry_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

And for the record: Phil Johnson was considered to be the father of the MODERN Intelligent Design movement.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I’m not sure about that. Can you conceive of math being different that what it is?
No, because it was intelligently designed to be the way it is.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

RP- History and the facts say that telic thinking, ie ID, started with Plato an Aristotle. Your ignorance will NEVER change history nor the factsET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I have two questions for you. 1 who is called “the Father of Intelligent Design”? 2 Was he an ancient Greek?Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

EG, a twisted, slanderous rewrite of history. First ID is ancient, the first design inference on record is in the teeth of evolutionary materialism and is cosmological, dating to 2360 BC, in the Laws Bk X, Plato. That Bible thumping fundy, NOT. It is only in C19 that by gradual imposition of a priori materialistic presuppositions, under cover of science that evolutionary materialism was able to gain a dominant position across C20. Creationism in the relevant sense, Biblical, is a different stream in history of ideas though there are intersections. The modern design theory movement simply does not fit the slanderous timeline portrayed by NCSE et al. the fine tuning issue camne up in the 1950s. By the turn of the 80's the lifelong agnostic, Hoyle was openly raising design issues. By the 1982 - 4 frame, given the results from molecular biology, design inference on OoL and further Oo body plans put itself on the table. The book and cases you allude to are much later than that, it is only a hermeneutic of scapegoating that created the lying -- yes, dfeliberately deceitful -- narrative that you cite, which serves only to dodge central issues. Start with, from the 1950's, it was realised that alphanumeric, algorithmic code was in DNA in the heart of the cell, which is a manifestation of language. Language is a key signature of design. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

@Ed 17: I don’t know what you’re talking about.Retired Physicist_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

BobRyan: ID explains. . . the existence of math, I'm not sure about that. Can you conceive of math being different that what it is?JVL_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie:
Creationism ===> Scientific Creationism ===> Intelligent Design.
Except for the FACT that ID was here first, of course. Acartia Eddie is just a willfully ignorant troll. It is too stupid to grasp that telic thinking, ie ID, started with Plato and Aristotle. And Darwin's finished and released raft of his book calls on Creator. By Eddie's "logic" evolutionism is Creationism.ET_{June 17, 2020
June
06
Jun
17
17
2020
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply