academic freedom Evolution News science education

Americans support dissent re evolution

Spread the love

From Discovery Institute:

As Americans celebrate their country’s freedom this week, a new survey reveals that an overwhelming 93 percent of American adults agree that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.” And 88 percent agree that “scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.” More.

Some of us wonder at times about the use of the term “dissent,” as if it were something special. Dissent is, in general, evidence of thinking. There is little dissent among a herd of cows about anything that pertains to being a cow.

See also: Known iconoclast physicist Freeman Dyson can talk about scientists’ blunders, including Darwin’s

and

Scratch a progressive, find a fascist underneath

Follow UD News at Twitter!

29 Replies to “Americans support dissent re evolution

  1. 1
    sean samis says:

    Regarding,

    [discussing] the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution

    and agreeing that,

    scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination

    Both these things are legitimately part of the scientific process, I doubt that anyone would find any significant disagreement even among the most devout atheists or diligent scientists.

    Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ANY theories and criticizing them on those points is part of the process.

    Creationism (and it’s alter-ego: ID) are not part of that process. They are the hammers used where screwdrivers and allen wrenches are appropriate; clumsy and destructive.

    sean s.

  2. 2

    SS says, essentially, that it is not censorship as long as he finds the ideas being censored “clumsy and destructive”.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Anyone familiar with the history of Darwinism knows that it is the creation story of atheism, and Darwin’s followers are anything but comfortable with criticism, however fact-based. The Royal Society’s current woes, just having a simple discussion, are testimony to that.

  4. 4
    sean samis says:

    It is not censorship to call something what it is. Or do you propose that creationism should be protected from criticism?

    Go ahead with your creationist thing, but don’t use it to censor science; because creationism is not part of science.

    Creationism is religious doctrine; perhaps theology. It’s not science.

    Criticizing science because it’s results are incompatible with creationism is as meaningless as criticizing science because “it does not pair well” with some kinds of wine.

    sean s.

  5. 5
    sean samis says:

    Not News:

    Anyone familiar with the history of Creationism knows that it is the creation story of a subset of fanatical Christians, and that subset of Christians are anything but comfortable with criticism, however fact-based.

    Spending a little time on this site just trying to have a simple discussion is testimony to that.

    sean s.

  6. 6

    Note how, after being called out on his censor-bilities, SS attempts to re-frame the debate as one of “criticism”.

    I don’t think anything should be protected from criticism, SS. However, you do not seem to understand that there’s a difference between criticizing creationism as non-scientific, and legally defining it as such with the weight of legal penalty; or institutionally defining it as such and penalizing professors and teachers for discussing creationism in science class or advancing it as a scientific alternative to other theories.

    Various forms of creationism are theories, SS, which can be supported or falsified via scientific evidence. All theories spring forth from metaphysical assumptions, SS; just because you are critical of some shouldn’t mean they should be censored.

    It’s fine that it is your opinion/criticism that creationism “is not science”, but censoring creationism from science class is not just criticism – it’s censorship.

    IOW, you are in favor of censoring some theories, not just “criticizing” them.

  7. 7
    sean samis says:

    Everyone aware of the issue knows that it’s not science that bars teaching creationism in public schools (in the US), it’s that pesky ol’ First Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

    Since creationism is religious doctrine or theology, public schools (which are agents of the State) cannot teach it. Science (including evolution) makes no religious claims so they are appropriate to teach in public schools.

    In private schools, you can teach whatever you want (unless you want the State to fund you, then there are issues). Teach creationism and flat-earthism if you want.

    There is no legal penalty when “professors and teachers for discussing creationism in science class”, religion can be DISCUSSED even in public schools. But when it is advocated as science; as fact; then a line is crossed that is impermissible unless we get rid of Freedom of Religion.

    Various forms of creationism are theories, SS, which can be supported or falsified via scientific evidence.

    Unfortunately, every form of creationism that can be tested has failed to produce any supporting facts. There are many failed theories; there is no reason to demand teaching of failed creationist theories when we barely discuss the all others. Those discussions are not forbidden by any law, they are just a waste of time and resources. Are you advocating yet more government waste?

    For Onlookers (whoever you are) you will notice that I have not advocated censorship of anything, WJM just has to spin things his way.

    Science must always be subject to review and criticism, that is part of the process. But illegitimate criticism is—well—illegitimate and needs to be called out.

    Creationism should never be broadly banned, nor creationists punished. But until they can establish it as a viable scientific theory, it just has no place in science curricula. Given the limited resources our schools have, spending time on it is a waste of those resources.

    That’s not censorship, it’s plain ol’ common sense.

    sean s.

  8. 8
    bill cole says:

    Sean
    News

    Anyone familiar with the history of Darwinism knows that it is the creation story of atheism, and Darwin’s followers are anything but comfortable with criticism, however fact-based. The Royal Society’s current woes, just having a simple discussion, are testimony to that.

    Sean

    Since creationism is religious doctrine or theology, public schools (which are agents of the State) cannot teach it. Science (including evolution) makes no religious claims so they are appropriate to teach in public schools.

    Natural selection creating lifes diversity and Universal common decent are now religious claims because they are not supported by the evidence. They are currently taught in the public schools.

    The design inference is not a religious claim yet it is not taught in public schools.
    Is something broken here?

  9. 9
    sean samis says:

    Bill;

    Natural selection creating lifes [sic] diversity and Universal common decent are now religious claims because they are not supported by the evidence. They are currently taught in the public schools.

    Religious claims assert deities, performance of religious observations, and moral obligations; evolution does none of these; it is not religious and makes no religious claims. Evolution is supported by the evidence.

    The design inference is not a religious claim yet it is not taught in public schools.

    ID is just a form of creationism (it is even older than the theory of evolution) and predicated on the actions of a deity. Absent a deity, the “design inference” is logically incoherent and rationally useless. By any reasonable measure, creationism (including ID) is inappropriate in a public school science class.

    Is something broken here?

    Yes. Your understanding of the issue is broken, possibly also your understanding of the scientific method.

    sean s.

  10. 10
    bill cole says:

    Sean

    Religious claims assert deities, performance of religious observations, and moral obligations; evolution does none of these; it is not religious and makes no religious claims. Evolution is supported by the evidence.

    How specifically is natural selection creating diversity supported by the evidence?

    How specifically is UCD supported by the evidence?

    If you cannot back up these arguments with a testable hypothesis then you have an inference. If your inference is contradicted by evidence then you have a “religious argument” because you are simply supporting the “no god” hypothesis with statements that are almost certainly wrong.

  11. 11
    sean samis says:

    Bill;

    If you come to a site like this looking for a detailed exposition on the evidence in support of any theory X, then indeed you will not be satisfied. Evolution is a big topic and if you don’t know what evidence has been reported, then you have not done your own homework. That’s not on me.

    If you cannot back up these arguments with a testable hypothesis then you have an inference. If your inference is contradicted by evidence then you have a “religious argument” …

    It’s not on me to prove it to you here. Do your own homework. There is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, there are ARGUMENTS but arguments are not evidence.

    … then you have a “religious argument” because you are simply supporting the “no god” hypothesis with statements that are almost certainly wrong.

    This is a common error. THE FACT IS THAT EVOLUTION DOES NOT POSIT A “NO GOD” HYPOTHESIS.

    Science in general (including evolution) simply does not take any deity into account for the very practical reason that no deity can ever be tested or falsified. Even if a deity exists, evolution remains the only scientific explanation for the development of life on earth.

    sean s.

  12. 12

    SS said:

    Since creationism is religious doctrine or theology, public schools (which are agents of the State) cannot teach it. Science (including evolution) makes no religious claims so they are appropriate to teach in public schools.

    Censorship supported by law is still censorship (that’s pretty much what makes it “censorship”). Rulings on constitutionality of various propositions change over time. Creationist theories have been censored from science class. You cannot have it both ways; either a science teacher is free to present creationist theories in science class and compare their relative strengths and weaknesses against evolutionary theory, or the material has been censored from science class.

    You are in favor of this particular case of legal censorship. Denying doesn’t change that fact.

    But when it is advocated as science; as fact; then a line is crossed that is impermissible unless we get rid of Freedom of Religion.

    Nobody has said anything about advocating any theory as a “fact”, so this is a red herring.

  13. 13
    bill cole says:

    sean

    It’s not on me to prove it to you here. Do your own homework. There is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, there are ARGUMENTS but arguments are not evidence.

    This blog is full of technical scientific discussions with sited technical papers supporting claims. This exists on both sides of the debate. By your answers you have not done an in-depth analysis of the theory and just are assuming it is right. Thus validating you have a non scientific opinion.

    The evidence that DNA is a sequence and proteins are a sequence directly contradicts natural selection as the mechanism of evolution and thus the theory of evolution. Your claim there is no evidence is beyond naive.

    The evidence that DNA is a sequence and proteins are a sequence supports the design inference.

  14. 14
    sean samis says:

    Regarding #12;

    You are in favor of this particular case of legal censorship. Denying doesn’t change that fact.

    For Onlookers (whoever you are), please notice how WJM misrepresents my words again.

    Please notice again that I have never said that creationism should be censored; I have said it could be discussed in public schools (#7) but that it is inappropriate in science classes because of practical constraints.

    WJM is correct that any legal prohibition on speech is censorship (a point I have never disputed) but he ignores the fact that creationism is prohibited from public school science curricula only when it is misrepresented as a scientific theory or taught as factual; due to Religious Liberty considerations. It is interesting to see how glibly he proposes weakening protections for Religious Liberty.

    WJM is correct that legal rulings change; but this one has not, and has a very sound basis. If it changes then we’d have to deal with that then. But until then, the legal ruling stands.

    If a science teacher wants to discuss creationism in a science class in order to explain its actual, valid status, then I’d support that. If I was a science teacher, I’d do that; the best way to teach students what science is is to show them what it is not. Teachers should NOT tell students that Gods don’t exist, or that creationism is false, but only that it ain’t science. ‘Cause, it ain’t.

    Nobody has said anything about advocating any theory as a “fact”,…

    Maybe not on this thread in the last day, but there’s no shortage of creationists who insist creationism is a fact.

    sean s.

  15. 15
    sean samis says:

    Bill wrote;

    This blog is full of technical scientific discussions with sited technical papers supporting claims. This exists on both sides of the debate.

    Well OK then, two responses:

    1. You no longer need my technical details; you should already know them.
    2. … and with all those “technical scientific discussions” here, they just go round and round and round; like ouroboros and achieve nothing.

    The evidence that DNA is a sequence and proteins are a sequence directly contradicts natural selection as the mechanism of evolution and thus the theory of evolution.

    Here’s a classic example of ouroboros. The fact that the genetic mechanism has a biochemical physical presence is a prediction that evolution made in the 19th century; especially the fact that some genetic information is not expressed (is recessive) in some generations. Creationists could never have predicted this, they just rationalize it away now.

    That the genetic mechanism (DNA) has a sequence is obviously necessary to evolution, and has been expected since genetics was discovered (long before DNA was known).

    This is why I never bother with long lists of citations. Creationists have become adept at reading into the evidence what they need.

    The fact that DNA is a sequence of amino acids which gives rise to proteins is consistent with what evolution predicted in the 19th century: a physical mechanism of inheritance that can mutate, can be physically expressed, and can preserve and pass along unexpressed traits.

    sean s.

  16. 16
    bill cole says:

    Sean

    The fact that DNA is a sequence of amino acids which gives rise to proteins is consistent with what evolution predicted in the 19th century: a physical mechanism of inheritance that can mutate, can be physically expressed, and can preserve and pass along unexpressed traits.

    The theory predicts that the diversity of life at least for sexual specie’s happens just as you mentioned, yet the genome is a sequence. What you actually think validates the theory, invalidates it. Do you understand why this creates a problem for the theory? Do you understand the number of ways you can organize a sequence? How can this change find functional protein sequences? How could a prokaryotic cell evolve into a eukaryotic cell which millions of DNA sequences need to organize to produce multi protein complexes necessary for multicellular life? What evolutionary mechanism do you propose can make this transition?

    That fact that these challenges to current evolutionary theory are not taught is evidence to me that evolutionary support groups like the NCSE are pushing a secular agenda which is in violation of the establishment clause that you support and I also support.

    2. … and with all those “technical scientific discussions” here, they just go round and round and round; like ouroboros and achieve nothing.

    I have a different experience with the discussions on this blog.

  17. 17
    drc466 says:

    ss,
    Allow me to disabuse you of this notion:
    “There is no evidence that contradicts evolution.”

    I will now present a series of statements that are all undisputed facts and/or examples of empirical evidence. I will make no reference to any given theory of origins, other than evolution. The facts and evidence presented will contradict evolution. These facts and evidence are merely one very, very small subset of empirical evidence that must be “explained away” by evolutionary theory without evidentiary support for such ad hoc rationalizations. Feel free to point out any statement below that is factually incorrect.

    1) Evolution requires millions of years for UCD to be a valid explanation for all life current and extinct. Undisputed fact.
    2) Evolution states that the age of fossils can be accurately predicted by the age of the layer the fossils are contained in. Undisputed fact.
    3) Organic material decays on the order of thousands of years. This has been empirically verified in the lab.
    4) Carbon-14 decays on the order of tens of thousands of years. This has been empirically verified in the lab.
    5) Evolution states that dinosaurs went extinct 10s of millions of years ago. Undisputed fact.
    6) Organic material and C14 have been found in dinosaur fossils and other fossils and materials that evolution claims must be 10s of millions of years old. Empirically verified, supported by dozens of documented cases in peer-reviewed evolutionary-viewpoint scientific literature.

    Item 6, when combined with items 3 and 4, represents clear “evidence that contradicts evolution”, in particular items 1, 2, and 5. None of the above facts represent personal opinion. None of the above facts represent a particular religious or philosophical ideology. None of the above facts are based on a particular theory of origins.

    Now, there are two current responses to the above contradictory evidence to evolution’s timescale: a) ignore the contradiction as a minor outlier to the “overwhelming” consensus view on ages, or b) minor isolated experiments aimed at identifying some process that might explain the contradiction between items 3 & 6. Regardless of whether you fall into the a) camp or the b) camp, that doesn’t change the fact that item 6 represents evidence that contradicts evolution.

    Of course, when you say “there is no evidence that contradicts evolution”, what you actually mean is “there is no evidence that contradicts evolution, that I cannot construct a just-so hypothetical explanation for”. See, e.g., convergent evolution, missing transitional fossils, mag-field decay, faint young sun paradox, young planets/comets, abiogenesis, fossil stasis, ORFAN genes, Hoyle, IC, etc. etc. ad infinitum. All of which are based on empirical lab results, mathematical calculations, and sound physics. These are the types of religion- and ideology-free objections that OUGHT to be permitted in science classes, but aren’t, because only the state-supported religion of atheistic evolution is allowed.

  18. 18

    sean @ 15

    The fact that DNA is a sequence of amino acids which gives rise to proteins is consistent with what evolution predicted in the 19th century

    Just so you know … DNA is not a sequence of amino acids, and it doesn’t give rise to proteins as a dynamic outcome (i.e. it is a representational medium that must be interpreted among alternatives by cellular machinery).

  19. 19
    bill cole says:

    UB

    Just so you know … DNA is not a sequence of amino acids, and it doesn’t give rise to proteins as a dynamic outcome (i.e. it is a representational medium that must be interpreted among alternatives by cellular machinery).

    Good catch 🙂

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    As to Sean’s claim that Darwinian evolution is a science and ID is a religion, let us be VERY clear that ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and our ability to comprehend that rational intelligibility.

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
    The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    In fact, modern science was uniquely born out of, and is still dependent on, the Christian worldview:

    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

    The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray – August 14, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.
    The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished.
    http://www.americanthinker.com.....igion.html

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and of our mind to comprehend it.
    In fact, Darwin’s book, ‘Origin’, is replete with bad liberal theology. Which should not really be all that surprising since Darwin’s college degree was in (liberal) theology:

    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

    To this day, Darwinists are still dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to establish the supposedly ‘scientific’ legitimacy of Darwinian claims:

    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

    Moreover, the scientists of Darwin’s day rejected his theory whilst, not so surprisingly, the liberal clergy readily accepted it:

    “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....of_Species

    Was Darwin a Scholar or a Pitchman? – Michael Flannery – October 20, 2015
    Excerpt: By and large, the scientists of his day were not much impressed with Darwin’s theory. John Herschel called natural selection “the law of higgledy-piggledy,” and William Whewell thought the theory consisted of “speculations” that were “quite unproved by facts,” so much so that he refused to put the book on the shelves of the Trinity College Library.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00191.html

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Someone tries telling the truth: Darwin wasn’t that great but he met an elite need – July 29, 2014
    Excerpt: , he (Charles Darwin) devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus (Origin Of Species) to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing. For such schoolboy ineptitude he was roundly criticized by his contemporaries, all of whom are now consigned to history’s dustbin, regardless of their skills and biological competency.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....lite-need/

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

    An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 22, 2012
    Excerpt: “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?” (Sedgwick to Darwin – 1859),,,
    And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,,
    For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ed-of.html

    Sedgwick to Darwin
    “…I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860

    Sean, and other Darwinists, may object that Darwinian evolution could just as well do without all the bad liberal theology that underpins Darwinian claims, and that they could just as well rely only on mathematics and evidence as other theories of science do. But he, and they, would be wrong in that claim.

    Darwinian evolution simply does not have a rigid mathematical basis to test against as other overarching theories of science have. In fact, Charles Darwin himself was trained in (liberal) theology and said that he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’. And as such, it should come as no surprise that Darwin used no mathematics whatsoever in his book ‘Origins’ to try to establish the legitimacy of his claims of evolution:

    Darwin Timeline
    Excerpt:1827 May
    ,,, Plans were made for Darwin to study for the clergy, and his father arranged for him to attend Christ’s College at Cambridge University.,,,
    1831 January 22
    He took his final exam and passed with very good scores! The exam covered such topics as Homer, Virgil, Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy (good scores here), Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding (did well here, too), mathematics (did not do so well), physics and astronomy (also, not very good). He came in 10th place out of 178 students who passed the exam.
    1831 March/April
    Darwin started thinking about settling down in a nice countryside parish as a clergyman with ample time to ramble about the countryside collecting bugs and plants.
    http://www.aboutdarwin.com/timeline/time_03.html

    “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

    It was not until the modern synthesis came along, circa 1940, that Darwinian evolution had some semblance of mathematical respectability with population genetics.

    Rocking the foundations of biology – video
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184
    ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976.

    But this semblance of mathematical respectability that population genetics had afforded Darwinian evolution was not to last.

    Haldane, (in a seminal paper in 1957—the ‘cost of substitution’), was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift – creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors – it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane’s dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation – but has obtained identical results.
    John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 159-160

    Walter ReMine on Haldane’s Dilemma – interview
    http://kgov.com/Walter-ReMine-on-Haldanes-Dilemma

    Kimura’s Quandary
    Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most ‘evolution’ must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom’s (neo-Darwinism’s) very validity.
    John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 161 – 162

    Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional.
    – Sanford

    A graph featuring ‘Kimura’s Distribution’ being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video:
    Evolution vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video – 59:27 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/-GLJE4FbHnk?t=3567

    In other words, Neutral theory, and the concept of junk DNA, was not developed because of any empirical observation, but was actually developed because it was forced upon Darwinists by the mathematics of population genetics. In plain English, neutral theory, and the concept of junk DNA, is actually the result of a theoretical failure of Darwinism within the mathematics of population genetics!

    It is also interesting, and important, to point out that Neutral Theory effectively casts what is considered Charles Darwin’s main contribution to science, i.e. Natural Selection itself, under the bus.

    “many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection”
    Michael Lynch
    The Origins of Genome Architecture, intro

    “the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer”
    Michael Lynch
    The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368

    “a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance”
    Mae Wan Ho
    Beyond neo-Darwinism – Evolution by Absence of Selection

    And without Natural Selection as a major player in evolution, basically all that is left of Darwin’s original theory is, effectively, random chance itself:

    (With the adoption of the ‘neutral theory’ of evolution by prominent Darwinists, and the casting aside of Natural Selection as a major player in evolution),,,
    “One wonders what would have become of evolution had Darwin originally claimed that it was simply the accumulation of random, neutral variations that generated all of the deeply complex, organized, interdependent structures we find in biology? Would we even know his name today?
    What exactly is Darwin really famous for now? Advancing a really popular, disproven idea (of Natural Selection), along the lines of Luminiferous Aether?
    Without the erroneous but powerful meme of “survival of the fittest” to act as an opiate for the Victorian intelligentsia and as a rationale for 20th century fascism, how might history have proceeded under the influence of the less vitriolic maxim, “Survival of the Happenstance”?”
    – William J Murray

    On Enzymes and Teleology – Ann Gauger – July 19, 2012
    Excerpt: People have been saying for years, “Of course evolution isn’t random, it’s directed by natural selection. It’s not chance, it’s chance and necessity.” But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it’s the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62391.html

    Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial – David Berlinski – November 2011
    Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. “A critique of neo-Darwinism,” the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, “can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science.”
    By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53171.html

  22. 22
    Robert Byers says:

    This info is terribly damaging to the spirit and motive of activist evolutionis involved in censorship of creationism.
    It shows the vast majority believe as a free people of intelligence would IN FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, SPEECH, CRITICISM.
    Its a bad plank to censor or punish freedom of science. Take that laws against climate change criticism. A bad plank for the democrats.
    Anyways.
    The people would never stop anyone from questioning anything. Its unAmerican and old school.

    Remember the censorship against creationism is based on the claim its only religious doctrines behind its criticism and no scientists are ID/YEC critics of evolution or truly see a creator in nature.

    This is a excellent foundation for ID/YEC/good guys everywhere to attack the whole structure of state censorship in public institutions.
    Truth has a excellent case to demand freedom to speak.
    Creationists and friends can’t blame the public.
    They only accept religious censorship. That is wrong also in areas of overlap.
    Creationism is not religious in its essence. Just happens to make conclusions abour conclusions religion makes. Too bad. Thats the truth.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Indeed, besides casting Natural Selection under the bus as a major player in evolutionary theory, the mathematics of population genetics has not been kind to Darwin’s theory in the least:

    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpted from ‘Living Waters’ video) (2015)
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1161131450566453/?type=2&theater

    Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse – August 2011
    Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....osenhouse/

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed papers analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution (neutral theory included),, (via John Sanford and company)
    http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx

    Moreover, as if casting natural selection under the bus by the mathematics of population genetics was not enough to falsify Darwinian evolution outright, the mathematics of population genetics recently went one step further and proved that, if Darwinian evolution were true, then all our perceptions of reality would be illusory.

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    It is important to note that reliable observation of reality is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself:

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.c.....ethod.html

    Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!

    In fact, besides our observations of reality, all of itself becomes illusory under Darwinian/Atheistic premises

    Darwinian evolution, and atheism/naturalism in general, are built entirely upon a framework of illusions and fantasy
    Excerpt: Thus, basically, without God, everything within the atheistic/naturalistic worldview, (i.e. sense of self. observation of reality, even reality itself), collapses into self refuting, unrestrained, flights of fantasies and imagination.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q94y-QgZZGF0Q7HdcE-qdFcVGErhWxsVKP7GOmpKD6o/edit

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, completely contrary to the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution, conscious observation, far from being illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable, than materialism had ever predicted. In fact, in the following experiment it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Apparently science itself could care less if Darwinian atheists believe their observations of reality are illusory!

    Moreover, as far as mathematics go, it is also important to point out that Darwinian evolution does not even have a rigid mathematical falsification criteria to test against as other overarching theories of science have.

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting – 02/08/2016
    Suzan Mazur: Peter Saunders in his interview comments to me said that neo-Darwinism is not a theory, it’s a paradigm and the reason it’s not a theory is that it’s not falsifiable.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....84812.html
    Peter Saunders is Co-Director, Institute of Science in Society, London; Emeritus professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London.
    Peter Saunders has been applying mathematics in biology for over 40 years, in microbiology and physiology as well as in development and evolution. He has been a critic of neo-Darwinism for almost as long.

    “For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.”
    Gregory Chaitin – Proving Darwin 2012 – Highly Respected Mathematician

    Darwinian Evolution is a Unfalsifiable Pseudo-Science – Mathematics – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater

    The reason that Darwinian evolution does not have a rigid mathematical basis to test against, i.e. a falsification criteria, is because there are no known laws of the physical universe to base the mathematics of evolution on. In other words, unlike the ‘law of gravity’ there simply is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the physical universe.

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    Now then you can say, how can you have theories in biology if you don’t have laws on which to base them?,,,
    in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    http://www.scientificamerican......-ernst-in/

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    In fact, not only does Evolution not have any known universal law to appeal to, as other overarching theories of science have, Entropy, i.e. the second law of thermodynamics, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity can be easily had:

    How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained — and How it Can be Challenged – Granville Sewell – September 3, 2013
    Conclusion: the journal BIO-Complexity has just published my new article “Entropy and Evolution,” which I believe contains the strongest and clearest presentation of my viewpoint to date. The first thought that will occur to many people who read it will be, how could this illogical compensation argument have gone unchallenged for so long in the scientific literature? Well, now you know how.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....76101.html

    “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
    Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

    And without a rigid mathematical basis, which is based on some natural law in order to potentially falsify Darwinian evolution from empirical observation, then Darwinian evolution does not even qualify a real science in the first place but is more properly classified as a pseudo-science:

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010
    Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....evolution/

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, Intelligent Design, (unlike Darwinian evolution which has no falsification criteria), is mathematically based on a known law ,(the ‘law of conservation of information’), and Intelligent Design is therefore testable, potentially falsifiable, and therefore scientific.

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    What Does “Life’s Conservation Law” Actually Say? – Winston Ewert – December 3, 2015
    Excerpt: All information must eventually derive from a source external to the universe,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....01331.html

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    Thus despite the oft repeated claim from atheists that Darwinian evolution is scientific and Intelligent Design is not a science but only religious, the reality of the situation is actually completely opposite to what they are claiming. Darwinian evolution is, in fact, dependent on faulty theology and is not a testable science.

    Verses, Video and Music:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater

    Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U

  26. 26
    Origenes says:

    Can anyone provide a list of the scientific strengths of the theory of evolution? Because, quite frankly, I am unable to name even one.

  27. 27

    Sean Samis seems to be having a hard time keeping his argument straight.
    In response to the OP’s comment:

    scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination

    He replied @1:

    Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ANY theories and criticizing them on those points is part of the process.

    Creationism (and it’s alter-ego: ID) are not part of that process. They are the hammers used where screwdrivers and allen wrenches are appropriate; clumsy and destructive.

    SS asserts that creationist theories (including ID) are not part of the “discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ANY theory” process because they are “creationist”.

    Clearly, removing creationist theories from “the process” of discussion and criticism because they are creationist is a form of censorship AND a net loss of religious liberty – the liberty to discuss and criticize a religion-based theory in science class.

    After having his censor-bilities called out, @7 he attempts to re-characterize the argument by saying:

    But when it is advocated as science; as fact; then a line is crossed that is impermissible unless we get rid of Freedom of Religion.

    Noticed how he changed from first saying that creationist theories had no place in the process of scientific discussion and criticism to saying it could not be advocated as fact in the science class.

    I called him out on this @12, to which he responded:

    Please notice again that I have never said that creationism should be censored; I have said it could be discussed in public schools (#7) but that it is inappropriate in science classes because of practical constraints.

    No, he didn’t say it should not be discussed in science class “because of practical constraints”, as the above quotes demonstrate.

    SS continues:

    WJM is correct that any legal prohibition on speech is censorship (a point I have never disputed) but he ignores the fact that creationism is prohibited from public school science curricula only when it is misrepresented as a scientific theory or taught as factual; due to Religious Liberty considerations.

    The argument has never been about teaching any theory as “factual”, but has been about creationist theory not being allowed to be “part of the process” of discussion and criticism, which SS said it should not be part of.

    SS also attempts to paint me as being against religious liberty:

    It is interesting to see how glibly he proposes weakening protections for Religious Liberty.

    He might have a case if I had advocated the state teaching any religious viewpoint as fact; no religious liberty is at risk if we are free to discuss and criticize religious theories in science class. Preventing such discussions (which is what SS originally advocated by claiming they are not part of that process) because such theories are religious is where we have a net loss of religious liberty.

    Continuing forward, SS has reiterated several times that ID is a creationist theory and is not scientific.

    Perhaps he will answer a few questions on the matter:

    1. Why is ID a creationist theory?
    2. Why is ID “not science”?
    3. Why are any creationist theories “not scientific”?

  28. 28
    Timaeus says:

    Sean Samis:

    In 7 above, you shift arguments without, apparently, being aware that you have done so.

    Your initial claim was that creationism (which for you includes ID) cannot be taught in science class for constitutional reasons, i.e., because of its religious contents. By the end of your comment, you are arguing that creationism shouldn’t be taught in science class because it is not science and therefore doesn’t belong on the curriculum. You say it’s a common sense issue, not a religious issue.

    If it’s purely a common sense issue, then there never needed to be a constitutional challenge in any of the celebrated cases of creationism or ID in the schools; all that was necessary was to say that the authorities in science education are responsible to decide what counts as science and what is included in the curriculum. (For exactly the same reason that authorities in geography education decide that poetic style in Shakespeare doesn’t belong on the geography curriculum.) End of story. No need to invoke the First Amendment to cut creationism out of science class when all you have to do is say that only scientific theories are taught in science class. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

    But in fact the First Amendment is regularly invoked in these cases. So there is an objection related to religious freedom; it’s not just a question of inappropriate content.

    You need to get your argument straight.

    There is also confusion in your argument between “teach” and “discuss.” Are you saying that it would be all right, constitutionally, to *discuss* ID in a science class? (Not promote it, discuss it?) Even if it would, in your view, be a waste of time for a science teacher to do so, would it be unconstitutional to *discuss* ID for a brief time during science class? Would it be unconstitutional for a science teacher to mention the existence of a man named Michael Behe who thinks that irreducible complexity poses a problem for neo-Darwinian theory, and say something like, “This is an outline of Behe’s argument, which most scientists don’t accept, but if you are interested you can read his book in the library and form your own opinion”? Would that be a violation of the religious freedom of Americans, for a science teacher to say something like that?

    That’s in essence all that happened at Dover: the existence of ID was mentioned by a school board official; ID was never taught or even discussed in any science class; students were told they could read more about it in the library in their spare time. Yet the upshot of the Dover decision was that it’s forbidden to even mention the existence of ID in science class — because — the court’s ruling implies — ID is so intrinsically religious that no science teacher could possibly have anything other than a religious motive for mentioning it. So if you support the view that discussing ID would be OK, as long as ID wasn’t promoted by the teacher, your view is not in line with the view of the court. The court ruled, in effect, that censorship of ID notions was not only permissible, but mandatory, within the bounds of science class. ID should not even be *mentioned* as a currently existing view, because to mention it would be to subtly inject religion into science class. Do you agree with that?

    And suppose a bright student, who reads outside of class — the kind of student that science teachers would die for, but rarely get — has heard about Behe and asks the science teacher what he thinks about Behe’s irreducible complexity argument? According to the Dover ruling, the science teacher would have to say, “I’m sorry, but a federal constitutional ruling prevents me from speaking to that question; ask your parents or your minister, or ask the English teacher, or ask anyone but me.” Do you support that as a model of good science teaching? Or do you think the teacher should be allowed to answer the question?

  29. 29
    sean samis says:

    Timaeus;

    I appreciate your catch; let me try to clarify.

    There are two kinds of arguments for creationism.

    The oldest, and I think the truest is that the Creator/Intelligent Designer is the proponent’s deity (whichever that may be). Seeing the pervasive and on-going commentary on this site (and others like it) about God, God’s power, biblical claims as applied to the creation of the universe, etc. I think it is reasonable to say that creationism is religious, and cannot be taught in public schools due to First Amendment considerations. Whether it can be taught about is a later subject.

    Faced with this problem, some creationists fall back on the designer being some kind of alien. The problems with this position are well known, boiling down to the lack of expected evidence and/or the intractable problem of the infinite regress.

    Creationists who can write at great length about the nuances of logic seem generally untroubled by the illogic of assuming that life could not be natural therefore something alive designed it. All twists and turns aside, this rationale is not even barely credible. So when it is suggested that this be taught in public schools, the proper response is to say, OK, this is not religious, but it is irrational, non-scientific, and a waste of limited resources. We should not teach it, and the reasons are commonsensical.

    I realize this seems like goal shifting on my part, but it is merely a response to the goal-shifting of creationists. To the extent I was not clear about what was going on, mea culpa.

    Are you saying that it would be all right, constitutionally, to *discuss* ID in a science class? (Not promote it, discuss it?)

    In other words, can public schools teach ABOUT creationism?

    Constitutionally, there is no problem with DISCUSSING even a purely religious topic in a public school classroom. As I wrote, if I was a science teacher, I would discuss creationism in order to make clear why it is not science, and thereby clarify what science is.

    I believe you misconstrue the Dover decision. If a bright student was to ask about Behe and irreducible complexity (which Behe neither invented nor coined the term for) I am quite certain that the teacher would be on constitutionally safe ground to discuss it.

    sean s.

Leave a Reply