Is the evolution debate becoming “much more civil and thoughtful”?

So Bob runs away instead of trying to clarify his equivocations. Typical ET

In 2015 Eric Andersen wrote this post which made the same point that I am making above.

Zachriel @8:

“Darwin presented two primary lines of evidence; natural selection as the mechanism of adaptation, and common descent as the history of life’s divergence from shared ancestors. Both lines are required to make sense of the evidence.”

No, natural selection is not a “mechanism of adaptation.” Darwin simply assumed that the adaptations would naturally arise (he never offered a mechanism and didn’t — in fairness probably couldn’t in his day — know what the “mechanism” of adaptation was). Natural selection was simply the way of getting rid of the unfit, the poor adaptations, the failed variations. There was never a mechanism posited. With some early appreciation for genetics, Neo-Darwinism came along and proposed that the mechanism Darwin had needed was random mutations in DNA. Thus, Darwin’s theory had found the long-needed mechanism and was now fully supported by purely natural explanations. Or at least that was the thought. Unfortunately, random mutations do not have the ability to generate the variation needed to produce all of nature’s varieties. No natural “mechanism” has ever been found that is adequate to the task. And this is precisely on the primary points of evolutionary critics: the needed variations, the great creative power of the evolutionary mechanism has never been shown; it is just assumed. Yes, Darwin proposed common descent. But this is an indirect inference that again lacks a mechanism or adequate evidentiary support. There are myriad issues with common descent, at least the naturalistic version of it. Nevertheless, many evolution critics are willing to even go so far as to accept common descent because it still doesn’t explain the source of the adaptations, it still doesn’t explain the source of biological novelty, it still doesn’t do away with the need for a designing intelligence. Such individuals might agree with you that common descent is required to make sense of the evidence. But even common descent does not mean we are dealing with RM+NS or some other purely natural process. To really make sense of the evidence, you need to be willing to take off the naturalistic blinders and consider that life may appear designed because it is designed. Until one is willing to consider that possibility, they will always be forced to make unsupported assumptions and intellectually-unsound leaps of faith to cram the evidence into their worldview. [emphasis added]

https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/how-to-trick-yourself-the-darwinian-thought-process/#comment-583530 By the way several prominent ID’ists (Denton and Behe, for example) accept common descent. But even if you accept CD that doesn’t prove or even imply that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is the cause of evolutionary change. john_a_designer

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins tried to argue that biology was “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Notice that to explain away design he has to concede that there is the appearance or intuition of design. But is it merely just all appearance-- just an illusion? Notice the logic Dawkins wants us to accept. He wants us to implicitly accept his premise that that living things only have the appearance of being designed. But how do we know that premise is true? Is it self-evidently true? I think not. Why can’t it be true that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they really have been designed for a purpose? Is that logically impossible? Metaphysically impossible? Scientifically impossible? If one cannot answer those questions then design cannot be eliminated from consideration or the discussion. I have said this here before, the burden of proof is on those who believe that some mindless, purposeless process can “create” a planned and purposeful (teleological) self-replicating system capable of evolving further though purposeless mindless process (at least until it “creates” something purposeful, because, according to Dawkins, living things appear to be purposeful.) Frankly, this is something our regular interlocutors consistently and persistently fail to do. john_a_designer

Set aside the local pastor writing the op-ed (see timothya @32). And set aside Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, Duane Gish, etc…all of whom argue on the basis of religion. Even set aside ID leaders like Meyer and Dembski. We’ve got a post yesterday highlighting a journal article advocating panspermia from pro-evolution (non-ID, non-creationist) scientists who say that the current neo-Darwinian paradigm can’t explain the Cambrian explosion, or the origin of life, or the complexity of octopi (or any of a wide-range of complex animals). The authors make the case against any known neo-Darwinian process being capable of evolving the Octopus. For them, frozen Octopi eggs flying in on comets 270 MYA is a more plausible, parsimonious explanation than evolution. Almost comically, the authors retreat to safe ground and assure the readers that they are firmly part of the evolutionist tribe, even as they saw off the branch they are sitting on. Yeah, I’d say there’s cracks in the dam. cmow

Silver Asiatic @74: Much as I respect the contributors to the Dissent from Darwin list, I don't think their number (maybe 1,000) is sufficient to demonstrate that evolutionary biology is suffering a crisis of confidence. There are probably 20,000 or more Ph.D.-holding biologists in the USA, about 95% of whom accept macroevolution as established fact, and probably about 80% of whom are confident that neo-Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism touched up with a bit of drift and a bit of horizontal gene transfer etc., supplies a sufficient mechanism for evolution. I wouldn't call such numbers indicative of a crisis of confidence among scientists regarding evolution, though they might indicate growing doubts among some biologists, especially those who specialize in evolutionary mechanisms, about the adequacy of the Modern Synthesis. I'd say there was a crisis of confidence in "evolution" (as opposed to "Darwinian theory of evolutionary mechanism") if, say, 20% of biologists now doubted that macroevolution even happened -- but that's not where we are at today. What the Dissent from Darwin list shows is that doubt about Darwinian mechanisms (which is really all that it covers, not evolution itself) is now no longer the province of a few fundamentalists with shaky or no academic qualifications, but is to be found in many accomplished scientists whose credentials are not in doubt, many of whom are not only not fundamentalists but not even Christian or conventionally religious at all. That is a new development. It's a promising development, but to call it a "crisis of confidence" is journalistic hyperbole. If you want a metaphor for the meaning of the Dissent from Darwin list, I'd say it's more like an increasing number of small cracks in the Darwinian dam, which might eventually lead to cracks in the larger dam of macroevolution itself. But the first step is to dethrone Darwin and neo-Darwinism. Until that is done, virtually no biologist would even consider going further to question evolution itself. And even after it is done, the materialistic majority of working biologists will rush into damage control mode to try to find some other mechanism of evolution that is equally as aimless and unguided as the neo-Darwinian one, in order to maintain their materialistic world-view. So it's going to be a long time yet before it will be possible for a working scientist to openly doubt the occurrence of macroevolution, and not be punished (by complete loss of scientific career) for doing so, no matter how many superb peer-reviewed papers he/she produces on biological subjects other than evolution. But the day is already here when younger and mid-career biologists are freely sassing neo-Darwinism, which in 1970 would have been almost unthinkable for anyone but a very few highly-placed biologists who were in an academic position from which they could not be fired. So there has been progress of a sort. eddieunmuzzled

Bob (and weave) O'Hara tries to mislead people once again and claims,,,

Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn’t mean it can be forgotten about or rejected.

Contrary to what Bob and other Darwinian atheists may believe, Darwinian evolution, and the presuppositions therein, are completely useless, even harmful, for the practice of science and medicine.

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).

As Phillip Skell stated in an article entitled, 'Why Do We Invoke Darwin?', "in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." and "Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

Jerry Coyne himself agrees with Skell's overall sentiment that Darwinian presuppositions are practically useless:

“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)

Michael Egnor notes that "Medical science is remarkably successful,,, all without Darwin."

Against "Darwinian Medicine" – Dr. Michael Egnor - August 9, 2016 Excerpt: Darwinist Randolph Nesse has been peddling "Darwinian Medicine" for years.,,, He argues for integration of Darwinian science into medical school curricula,,, The very admission that Darwinism has had no role in medical science is a telling argument not for its inclusion, but for its irrelevance. Medical science is remarkably successful. Antibiotics, cybernetics, cancer chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, hip replacements, heart transplants, and a host of near-miraculous advances have greatly extended our lifespan and improved the quality of our lives -- all without Darwin. Whether or not Darwinian hypotheses can be teased out of some medical advances, it is simply a fact that doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/against_darwini103058.html

As the following leading Doctor admitted, his career was "at no point aided by an understanding of Darwinian evolution" and in fact "a lack of understanding of design in physiology may hinder their (a young doctor's) performance."

Why Understanding Intelligent Design Helps Us to Understand Physiology - Philip Anderson - March 23, 2017 Excerpt: The progress of my career from wide-eyed and nervous first year medical student to head of an anesthesiology department and examiner for the Colleges of Medicine of South Africa was at no point aided by an understanding of Darwinian evolution, even though I was taught it and was first in my university class in biology. And my understanding of Darwinian evolution has not in any way benefited the manner in which I treat patients. Quite the opposite! Every year, when I give the annual opening address at our hospital when welcoming new graduates and senior medical officers, I point out that it is only when you understand the human body as the pinnacle of design that you can truly care for patients. Studying the Darwinian theory of evolution at medical school may align the beliefs of medical students with those of their colleagues in the biology department, but it in no way benefits them as physicians or helps them practice medicine. On the contrary, as the candidate I was helping illustrates, a lack of understanding of design in physiology may hinder their performance. A student happy to embrace design will have one less mental hurdle to overcome. https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/why-understanding-intelligent-design-helps-us-to-understand-physiology/

In fact, in so far as Darwinian thinking has informed medical opinions, it has led to much medical malpractice:

Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1). “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137). The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting. http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bible-evolutions-vestigial-organ-argument-debunked/

Moreover, testing medicines on animals is largely a huge failure precisely because of the false evolutionary assumption of common ancestry:

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? – Mouse Models Excerpt: A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community. AZRA RAZA – Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Excerpt: The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.,,, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.,,, Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack – Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide – 2005 Excerpt: we have many characteristics that are uniquely human. Table 1 lists some of the definite and possible phenotypic traits that appear to differentiate us from chimpanzees and other “great apes”2. For the most part, we do not know which genetic features interact with the environment to generate these differences between the “phenomes”3 of our two species. The chimpanzee has also long been seen as a model for human diseases because of its close evolutionary relationship. This is indeed the case for a few disorders. Nevertheless, it is a striking paradox that chimpanzees are in fact not good models for many major human diseases/conditions (see Table 2) (Varki 2000; Olson and Varki 2003). http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

And let's not forget Darwinian presuppostions misleading researchers in molecular biology, for years and years, with its false prediction of junk DNA. As Ewan Birney himself stated "This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."

Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin - September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."" We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html

Bob (and weave) also tried to claim that Intelligent Design was useless to biology. Yet biology is infused with teleology, (end directed goals, i.e. design thinking). In fact, "the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology". Moreover, it is impossible to describe the complexities of molecular biology "in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness".

The 'Mental Cell': Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! - Stephen L. Talbott - September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm

To reiterate, Darwinian evolution, and the presuppositions therein, are completely useless, even harmful, to the practice of science and medicine. bornagain77

Mike Gene, author of "The Design Matrix" had an essay about Intelligent Design that opened with:

"What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena. For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question":

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

"The first thing to note about the question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t even have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it."

Science 101- try to determine how whatever it is you are investigating came to be the way it is What is Intelligent Design?:

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis.

Well before any Creationist movement of the 1960s ET

Amblyrhynchus:

The ID movement was, depending on who you asked, about teaching creationism in schools or replacing evolutionary biology as a science.

Those people are wrong on both counts. ID is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution- the untestable idea that life's diversity arose via blind and mindless processes, like natural selection and drift, starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes. Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. And ID is not Creationism. Creationism- YEC, OEC and Progressive- are all subsets of ID but ID is more than the subsets of Creationism. ET

And they are welcome to believe that. Amblyrhynchus

Some people believe that they should be able to teach ID in schools without any penalty. Silver Asiatic

sure, your personal beliefs are your own. Amblyrhynchus

A

So, you could be a really great population ecologist who believed in phlogiston or ID or young each creationism.

Yes, you can do great work in biology and reject Darwin at the same time.

But, more to the point, all scientists (and all people) are welcome to believe whatever they want.

Do you, personally, "welcome" any and all beliefs a person may have? Silver Asiatic

I understood this as “evolution is one important aspect but there are areas of biology that do not require an acceptance of it.” In other words, evolution is not a “theory of biology” as a whole since it does not explain some parts of biology. Correct? Or does evolution give the foundation and meaning to all biology?

You are getting progressively stranger as this thread wears on. You may want to step back? In response to this latest tack.... physics and chemistry are both fundamental to all of biology. Most (but not all) ecologists won't have to call of the prinicpals of physics or O. chem in their work. So, you could be a really great population ecologist who believed in phlogiston or ID or young each creationism. That doesn't do much to undermine the importance of physics or evolutionary biology, it just means it's possible to do good research in some areas with out calling on the tools and principals of those sciences. But, more to the point, all scientists (and all people) are welcome to believe whatever they want. The ID movement was, depending on who you asked, about teaching creationism in schools or replacing evolutionary biology as a science. It has failed on both counts. That neither ID nor evolutionary biology are of vital importance to some fields of biology doesn't change that in any way. Amblyrhynchus

Bob O'H

Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn’t mean it can be forgotten about or rejected. Probability theory isn’t used in everything either, but anyone suggesting it can thus be forgotten or dismissed would be viewed as eccentric (to say the least).

If evolution is not required in that field of biology then it can be dismissed or forgotten about with no negative impact to that science. Astrology is not required for the study of mathematics. So, astrology can be dismissed or forgotten about by anyone studying or teaching math with no negative consequences. The same is true for evolution and some parts of biology.

This is absurd – if evolution is irrelevant for a subject, then so is biological ID: they both try to explain the same phenomena.

That's fine. Some biologists want to believe in evolution. Others may want to accept ID. This would have no impact on the quality of their science.

So why would you teach one irrelevant subject because another is irrelevant?

If you're saying that biologists who work in certain aspects of ecology should not be required to know anything about evolution, then yes. There should be no requirement for those biologists to accept Darwin. Darwin would be totally irrelevant to that aspect of biology - adding nothing. As for ID, some may want to know about Intelligent Design and they could freely adhere to that theory and be equally qualified in those same areas of biology. In other words, there should be no opposition to IDists who work in those areas of biology. Their acceptance of ID has nothing to do with their biological qualifications. Silver Asiatic

Bob O'H:

Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn’t mean it can be forgotten about or rejected.

How are you defining "evolution", Bob? And ID isn't limited to biology. That's its beauty. It is supported by several scientific venues. ET

Yes, some parts do and therefore some parts do not need evolution – evolution can be dismissed (forgotten about, ignored, disregarded, rejected, etc). It is not an theory that all biological research requires. I think that’s what you were saying, right?

Err, not quite. Evolution does not need to be used in everything, but that doesn't mean it can be forgotten about or rejected. Probability theory isn't used in everything either, but anyone suggesting it can thus be forgotten or dismissed would be viewed as eccentric (to say the least).

Well, I mean for those scientists who believe ID or Creationism is true, then they could teach those ideas on the development of the biological world and it would have no impact for better or worse on that field of study.

This is absurd - if evolution is irrelevant for a subject, then so is biological ID: they both try to explain the same phenomena. So why would you teach one irrelevant subject because another is irrelevant? Bob O'H

Bob O'H

I explicitly pointed out that some parts of ecology DO use evolutionary biology.

Yes, some parts do and therefore some parts do not need evolution - evolution can be dismissed (forgotten about, ignored, disregarded, rejected, etc). It is not an theory that all biological research requires. I think that's what you were saying, right? You said "Evolution is one important aspect, but (for example) a lot of ecology doesn’t invoke evolution ..." I understood this as "evolution is one important aspect but there are areas of biology that do not require an acceptance of it." In other words, evolution is not a "theory of biology" as a whole since it does not explain some parts of biology. Correct? Or does evolution give the foundation and meaning to all biology?

Why would we teach students theories that are widely rejected by the scientific community?

Well, I mean for those scientists who believe ID or Creationism is true, then they could teach those ideas on the development of the biological world and it would have no impact for better or worse on that field of study. In those "some areas of ecology" where evolution plays no role, then those students who accept Intelligent Design or Creationism could be just as effective in their field of biology as anyone who learned Darwinian theory. Darwin, creationism, ID or any other idea on origin of species would be irrelevant to that field of biology. Correct? Silver Asiatic

Earth to Bob O'H- The question is what does the blind watchmaker have to do with evolution? When you say "evolutionary biology" are you referring to "blind watchmaker evolution" or some other "evolution"? ET

SA @ 72 - Eh? Your logic escapes me. It doesn't help that you twist my worlds - I didn't way that evolution can be dismissed. I explicitly pointed out that some parts of ecology DO use evolutionary biology. The same is true for other areas of biology: evolutionary biology impinges on them, but a lot of the time it is not necessary to consider, because different questions are being asked. Your suggestion is akin suggesting that because relativity is not used in a lot of physics, we can teach those students the theory of aether instead. Why would we teach students theories that are widely rejected by the scientific community? Bob O'H

There are many weaknesses with evolutionism, ie the alleged theory of evolution. Here are just a few: 1- It makes untestable claims 2- It doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes 3- There aren't any predictions borne from its proposed mechanisms 4- There isn't a scientific theory of evolution ET

eddieunmuzzled

It expresses doubts about the adequacy of the (neo-)Darwinian theory, not about the confidence of evolutionary biologists.

The crisis of confidence was with regards to the theory. But you're thinking it was about their own self-confidence? Ok, yes, if Bob was thinking that the topic is discussing the personal self-confidence of biologists then yes, the Dissent from Darwin list doesn't touch upon that. But when a group of academics and professionals dissent against the dominant scientific and philosophical idea in the world today (which evolution is, and it must be evaluated by more than just biologists) - then it's a sign of a crisis of confidence for the theory. That has nothing to do with whether a person feels confident in his or her own personal qualities or character or mode of life. Silver Asiatic

jdk

She then goes on to explain that critics of evolution search the literature for anomalies (matters of detail subject to some uncertainty and further investigation) and then use those to claim that the whole notion of evolution as descent by modification and common ancestry is invalid, which is, as she says, “not how science is done.”

I think Einstein was quite concerned with mathematical detail when trying to prove his theory. Looking for areas where a theory does not line up with reality is "how science is done". Evolution, however, seems to want to be protected from that ordinary sort of questioning. ID also, does not claim that the whole notion of evolution is invalid. Silver Asiatic

Bob O

a lot of ecology doesn’t invoke evolution, because ecologists are often looking at short time scales and at aspects of biology where intra-specific variation can be ignored. Thus a lot of ecological theory doesn’t depend on evolutionary biology (although other ecological theory does use evolutionary biology).

If evolutionary theory can be dismissed in those areas of biology then Intelligent Design or Creationism could be taught to students pursuing those fields. Silver Asiatic

jdk

Mercer says, “You are saying there are no weaknesses in evolution.” Genie replies, “Not in the sense that the term weaknesses is used in this rarified environment.” Notice, she does not say “yes”.

So she thinks there are weaknesses in evolutionary theory then, right? Silver Asiatic

Bob O'Hara: You wrote: "I made that comment in response to the Dissent from Darwin list being used as evidence for the claim that evolutionary biology has experienced a crisis of confidence. In that specific context I think it’s only reasonable to look at evolutionary biologists." All right; I agree that the Dissent from Darwin list is not about whether or not evolutionary biologists are confident. It expresses doubts about the adequacy of the (neo-)Darwinian theory, not about the confidence of evolutionary biologists. So against your opponent, you win on that point. Still, I raised some serious questions about the way these debates generally go. If you have followed these debates, you will know that many people have said things along the lines of what I described. So I'm looking for your view on whether those statements are justified. 1. For example, I have read many times in different places, "Behe is not qualified to comment on evolution because he is a biochemist, not a biologist." Do you think the reasoning there is sound? Do you think that the subject of evolution "belongs" to biologists and that biochemists have nothing to say about it? If that reasoning is solid, then Larry Moran is not qualified to comment on evolution, either, but he comments on it at length, and seems to regard himself as one of the world's experts on the subject. Is it in your view right to say that biochemists aren't competent to debate evolution, but then make an exception for Moran -- or for anyone? 2. I've known many scientists, and an almost universal characteristic of theirs is a careful avoidance of "speaking out of their field." This goes so far that sometimes even a chemist won't comment on the work of another chemist ("That's not my branch of chemistry"), and I know of one case where a trained astrophysicist and department chair wouldn't comment on some of Hawking's work because it wasn't in his "area" of astrophysics. Even parts of astrophysics were out of the astrophysicist's field! But in the blogosphere, in popular books, and on the university and mass media debating circuit, where the subject is evolution, suddenly *every* biologist (whether with any serious training in evolutionary theory or not) is an expert on evolution; in fact, scores of computer programmers, physicists, astronomers, and others also regard themselves as experts on evolution, and pontificate on it, lashing out at anyone who questions their understanding of it. Can you account for why the caution and modesty normally found among scientists in everyday scientific practice gets thrown out the window when the subject is evolution? For why every scientist and his mother-in-law feels competent to set the world straight on evolution? Would you say that a little more professional restraint is in order? eddieunmuzzled

eddieunmuzzled @ 66 - I made that comment in response to the Dissent from Darwin list being used as evidence for the claim that evolutionary biology has experienced a crisis of confidence. In that specific context I think it's only reasonable to look at evolutionary biologists. Bob O'H

SA @ 63 - thank you for acknowledging you were wrong. Next time please check your facts. To be frank, I have no idea what a single theory of biology would even look like: there are simply so many different aspects to it. Evolution is one important aspect, but (for example) a lot of ecology doesn't invoke evolution, because ecologists are often looking at short time scales and at aspects of biology where intra-specific variation can be ignored. Thus a lot of ecological theory doesn't depend on evolutionary biology (although other ecological theory does use evolutionary biology). Bob O'H

SA @ 62 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeS4hdVm318&t=133s “You’re saying … there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution?” E.S. “(Yes, I am)”

Thank you for that link, it's interesting, but if anything it undermines your claim. Now can you provide one where Genie Scott says that there are no weaknesses in evolution, please.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to contribute and can be rejected or ignored in the study of all those kinds of biology? Or is rather that evolution the foundation and necessary component in in those fields of study

Neither. The reality is somewhere in between, and where it is varies depending on the subject. Bob O'H

Bob O'Hara: "The Dissent from Darwin list in [sic] well known: few are biologists (let alone evolutionary biologists)." What is that supposed to mean? That only the specialists known as "evolutionary biologists" are qualified to talk about evolution? If that's the case, then some of the leading loudmouths in the public debate about evolution, for example, Ken Miller, cell biologist, Kathryn Applegate, cell biologist, Deb Haarsma, astronomer, Karl Giberson, physicist, Eugenie Scott, anthropologist, Sam Harris, psychologist, Christopher Hitchens, political/social commentator, Bill Nye, popular science educator sans Ph.D. in anything, Steven Weinberg, cosmologist, P.Z. Myers, some sort of biologist (but not an evolutionary biologist), Elizabeth Liddle, cellist, architect, and neuroscientist, Daniel Dennett, philosopher, and many others aren't qualified to talk about evolution. Yet all these people do talk about evolution, with great confidence, often swaggering confidence; and you've never scorned their aid and assistance, have you? Or even if you allow anyone called "biologist" at the table, that still leaves out Larry Moran (biochemist, not biologist; many anti-ID folks used to argue that Michael Behe had no right to talk about evolution because he's only a biochemist, not a biologist), and several other biochemists, including Denis Alexander, the big British propagandist for Darwinism, and it still leaves out the aforementioned exclusions. Even if you widen the definition of "biologist" to include biochemists like Moran and anthropologists like Eugenie Scott, you would still be leaving out Dennett, Harris, Weinberg, a huge number of BioLogos and ASA scientists who are pro-Darwin, etc. So if you are going to exclude the scores of scientists on the Dissent from Darwin list who aren't "biologists" in whatever sense you mean the term, you are going to have to scratch off Dennett, Harris, Weinberg, and some of the other culture-war leaders on your side. Are you prepared to be consistent to that extent? How about the pro-Darwinian, anti-ID people who control all the articles about evolution and ID on Wikipedia? None of them will even give their real names, so it's impossible to verify their qualifications, but it's clear that none of them have graduate-level training in any branch of biology, let alone a specialty such as evolutionary biology. Their thought is entirely derivative; they merely repeat tropes from Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Jerry Coyne, etc., without any scientific understanding of their own. Are you prepared to grant that the Wikipedia editors have no business in the public debates over evolution, on the grounds that they aren't evolutionary biologists or even biologists, and are too cowardly to reveal their names and qualifications? You seem to be advocating a "gatekeeper" approach, whereby one needs a certain union card in order to deserve a hearing. That would be fine if you applied it consistently, but I don't think you are doing that. Either the criterion is formal training and/or publications in evolutionary theory (which cuts out a whole mess of the best-known popular advocates for Darwinism), or the criterion is knowledge of evolutionary theory, however acquired, even if one is formally in another field (which allows not only the aforementioned people but lots of other people you won't like so much). If you go for the "formal training" option, then you have to deal with the fact that many critics of Darwinian theory have more than ample formal training in evolutionary biology, including James Shapiro, Richard Sternberg, Gunter Wagner, and even (at some points) Stephen Jay Gould, who mocked the tendency of Darwinians to invent "just-so" selectionist stories. Do these anti-Darwinian evolutionary theorists deserve a place at the table, in your view? Or is it only those with formal training who also pay obeisance to neo-Darwinism who count? If you go for the "knowledge of evolutionary theory, however acquired, even if one is a philosopher of science or astronomer or physicist or geographer or something else" option, then you can't include philosopher Dan Dennett without also including philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, whose knowledge on the technical biological side dwarfs Dennett's (and Miller's, and Eugenie Scott's, and many others who claim great knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms but don't read the current technical literature, which Nelson does voraciously). Lots of people on the Dissent from Darwin list have knowledge of evolutionary theory, even if they aren't "evolutionary biologists" or even "biologists". Other scientists, historians of science, philosophers of science, often know quite a bit about evolutionary theory. As much as Dan Dennett or Sam Harris or even Ken Miller do. (Miller's understanding of evolutionary theory is theoretically circa about 1975.) So how about offering some consistent criteria about who is qualified to have an opinion on evolution, ID, etc.? eddieunmuzzled

I am very glad that SA found a video of Genie's response at the Texas Board meeting. I am, however, a bit appalled (although unfortunately not surprised) at how badly Genie's answer was misrepresented in the posts above. Genie did NOT say, "There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory”. When asked if there were weaknesses by Texas Board member Mercer in the context of a discussion about putting a statement about "strengths and weaknesses" into state high school science standards, the conversation went as follows: Mercer says, "You are saying there are no weaknesses in evolution." Genie replies, "Not in the sense that the term weaknesses is used in this rarified environment." Notice, she does not say "yes". She then goes on to explain that critics of evolution search the literature for anomalies (matters of detail subject to some uncertainty and further investigation) and then use those to claim that the whole notion of evolution as descent by modification and common ancestry is invalid, which is, as she says, "not how science is done." To claim that Genie said "There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory” is intellectually dishonest. jdk

“You’re saying … there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution?” E.S. “(Yes, I am)”

Scott's answer here (which is not well summarized by the paraphrase above) is very good. Amblyrhynchus

Bob

your source for Noble saying that there is no theory of evolutionary biology is not him saying that there is no theory of evolutionary biology ...

He said there is no theory of biology. If you're saying that evolution is not the theory of the origin and development of all life forms on earth (and thus the theory of all biological development) that would be interesting. Silver Asiatic

Bob @60

I asked you 3 questions. You haven’t responded about the Genie Scott quote,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeS4hdVm318&t=133s "You're saying ... there are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution?" E.S. "(Yes, I am)" What are your thoughts, Bob? Are there any weaknesses in the theory of evolution? Some options: "There are no weaknesses". "There are some weaknesses". "There might be some or none". "I don't know what 'weakness' means". "I don't know what 'the theory of evolution' means". "I really don't know". "I don't want to tell you". I think that should cover your options, but feel free to come up with another one.

You also ask what other sorts of biology are there than evolutionary biology. Well, there’s all sorts: cell biology, molecular biology, ecology, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, pathology, plant pathology, epidemiology, plant epidemiology, histology, etc etc etc. Of course, they are all related to each other, but are different areas of study and ways of looking at organisms.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to contribute and can be rejected or ignored in the study of all those kinds of biology? Or is rather that evolution the foundation and necessary component in in those fields of study? If the latter, then it's all evolutionary biology as opposed to non-evolutionary biology. If the former, then evolution has really nothing to contribute to biology as a whole, but only its own narrow sphere. Silver Asiatic

Ambly:

10 years ago Dembski though this field would collapse and no longer exist.

And there isn't any such field as blind watchmaker evolution ET

SA @ 56 - I asked you 3 questions. You haven't responded about the Genie Scott quote, your source for Noble saying that there is no theory of evolutionary biology is not him saying that there is no theory of evolutionary biology, and you don't explain how models of evolutionary biology can be built without a theory (FWIW, your claims that "no theory that predicts what fitness will be for any organism" is wrong: Fisher pointed out that Euler provided the equation for how life history traits affect fitness, and since then there have been many other models, e.g. in the evolution of behaviour). You also ask what other sorts of biology are there than evolutionary biology. Well, there's all sorts: cell biology, molecular biology, ecology, genetics, biochemistry, physiology, pathology, plant pathology, epidemiology, plant epidemiology, histology, etc etc etc. Of course, they are all related to each other, but are different areas of study and ways of looking at organisms. Bob O'H

Ok. Evolution is a “field of study”. Yes, a lot of people get paid to tell stories about it. Students at universities are a captive audience that have to pay to hear those stories also. So, that whole thing will live on in the future. It’s all safely protected by law also

10 years ago Dembski though this field would collapse and no longer exist. It didn't. In fact, now yoy think it's live into the future. So prehaps thinks aren't better for ID ten years later? (I'm not sure if you remember, but that was your claim to start with). Amblyrhynchus

Re: #46, "The dissenters are not part of the evolutionary biology community." I'm not sure that we would expect any different. Or that it matters in any meaningful way. Maybe we would expect very few dissenters from within the community, but perhaps a few. And the major dissenters would be 'kicked out' of the community as 'No True Scotsmen', and the few others who did dissent publicly in a more minor way would couch it in a framework that wouldn't rock the boat, picking at the margins or always subtly retreating to the mainstream for the sake of financial self-preservation, etc... cmow

Link above should be Denis Noble's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble Silver Asiatic

Bob

If Denis Noble said that there is no evolutionary theory (again, do you have a source for this?), then he is wrong. ow can we build models (e.g. population genetics, phylogenetic, coalescence) without theory?

The models are built on the assumption that there is descent from common ancestors, which at one time meant a tree of life and now means something else. But there's no theory that predicts what fitness will be for any organism, whether new features will evolve or an organism will become extinct. Supposedly, visual similarity in fossils was an indication of ancestry, except that conflicts with DNA comparisons. It is then assumed that sequence similarity is evidence of ancestry but that gives us multiple-supposed species which virtually identical physical characteristics. I'll just offer this clip from the Berkeley evolution site that jdk posted.

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science? All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world. Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include: 1 Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps? 2 Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse? 3 How does evolution produce new and complex features? 4 Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

I note that. It begins by assuring us that all the available evidence supports evolutionary conclusions. And that biologists do not argue those conclusions. Then reading down, some of the big issues include "how does evolution produce new and complex features?" This is a question that biologists are "trying to answer". Ok, there is supposed to be a theory in place that already answered that. But obviously, that's not the case. This site is slightly more honest than others. They do admit that they are still trying to answer the basic question that supposedly Darwin already answered. As for Denis Noble, the evolution-friendly Wikipedia gives us this - I refer you to #10 on the list:

Ten Principles of Systems Biology:[24][25] 1 Biological functionality is multi-level 2 Transmission of information is not one way 3 DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance 4 The theory of biological relativity: there is no privileged level of causality 5 Gene ontology will fail without higher-level insight 6 There is no genetic program 7 There are no programs at any other level 8 There are no programs in the brain 9 The self is not an object 10 There are many more to be discovered; a genuine ‘theory of biology’ does not yet exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology

To the retort that he is talking about a "theory of systems biology and not evolution" - I think points 1-9 show otherwise. There is no theory for the origin of these biological systems. Noble does not accept Darwinism. Beyond that, you make the distinction between "evolutionary biology" and some other kind of biology. Is there a biology that is "non-evolutionary"? If so, where can I find it? Silver Asiatic

For example, Futuyma's "evidence" for the efficacy of natural selection is baldly declaring that natural selection is the only process known to create adaptations and then pointing out adaptations. That is the extent of his science of evolution. ET

Hi Jack, I have read Futuyma's 2013 textbook "Evolution". It doesn't help you as far as a scientific theory of evolution goes. I even read "Evolution's Witness: How the Eye Evolved" and it didn't even cover how eyes evolved. It just showed different vision systems from the more simple to the more complex. ET

A good general grad level textbook would be a considerably more thorough place to start, ET. jdk

jdk:

The theory of evolution has been contributed to by thousands of people.

And not one has found evidentiary support for Darwin's claims pertaining to natural selection replacing a designer. No one has found a testable mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes. We can't even test the claim that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor. Kinesiology argues against such a thing. So what have your alleged thousands of people contributed? ET

That was a stupid answer, Jack. But it serves to support my claim that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. As Giuseppe Sermonti said in "Why is A Fly Not a Horse?": "There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution." page 11, just after quoting Jerome Lejeune who called out at the end of a meeting of scientists "There is no theory of evolution!" and no one objected. ET

ET writes, "Who was the author of the scientific theory of evolution, Jack?" That is a stupid question. The theory of evolution has been contributed to by thousands of people. Occasionally someone writes a book (or a website) summarizing the theory, but no one person is the "author". jdk

No, Jack, it doesn't help at all. Wikipedia definitely doesn't post a scientific theory. Who was the author of the scientific theory of evolution, Jack? Tell us some of its predictions born from its posited mechanisms. There can be a general concept of evolution without there being a scientific theory. ET

Here are some places to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 (I used this as the main source for the two presentations summarized belowL http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Evo.101.class1.ppt.pdf http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/Evo.101.class2.ppt.pdf Hope this helps, ET. :-) jdk

OK Bob O'H- please link to a scientific theory of evolution so we can all read what it says. Or do you mean theory in the general and not scientific sense? Darwin said to falsify his concept we had to prove a negative all the while forgetting he never provided any supporting evidence to support his claims about natural selection. So please just link to the theory so we can all see what it is and what is says ET

SA @ 45 - Eugenie Scott, members of the “Dissent from Darwin” list and Denis Noble are not members of the evolutionary biology community. I don't know the context of Scott's comment, and can't find a primary source for it. Do you have a link? The Dissent from Darwin list in well known: few are biologists (let alone evolutionary biologists). If Denis Noble said that there is no evolutionary theory (again, do you have a source for this?), then he is wrong. ow can we build models (e.g. population genetics, phylogenetic, coalescence) without theory? Bob O'H

Bob

I’m not aware of any crisis of confidence having happened in evolutionary biology ...

Do you agree with Eugenie Scott's famous line: "There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory"? I'd also direct you to the list of scientists who "Dissent from Darwin" but I think you'll dismiss it. According to Denis Noble, there is no evolutionary theory. He's waiting for one to be established. Dembski talks of "Darwinian processes" working successfully at the molecular level. I think you're saying those are fully supported by the data. Even Larry Moran disagrees with that. I think I've got evidence that there is a crisis of confidence. The mechanism and theory no longer exist. There's no consensus on what evolution does, how it works and what it can predict. Silver Asiatic

Bob O'H:

I’m not aware of any crisis of confidence having happened in evolutionary biology, so unless you have any evidence to the contrary, I think the prediction was wrong.

And yet Darwin's ideas remain untestable and natural selection has failed as a designer mimic. No one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything and it hasn't added anything to our knowledge ET

timotha- Dawkins started it well before your articles by calling people who disagree with evolutionism insane or wicked. Everything else is in RESPONSE to that ET

SA @ 41 - Amblyrhynchus was reponding to your comment @ 27:

At the time of Dover Dembski was talking evolutionary simply not existing in 10 years.

I think he was proven right about that.

The attendance at this year's ESEB suggests he was totally wrong: there hasn't been a "Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism". This, I think, is the comment from Dr. Dembski that Amblyrhynchus was referring to:

In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this.

I'm not aware of any crisis of confidence having happened in evolutionary biology, so unless you have any evidence to the contrary, I think the prediction was wrong. Bob O'H

Amblyrhynchus

Pretty good turn out for a field of study that no longer exists, I would have thought?

Ok. Evolution is a "field of study". Yes, a lot of people get paid to tell stories about it. Students at universities are a captive audience that have to pay to hear those stories also. So, that whole thing will live on in the future. It's all safely protected by law also. But I thought you were talking about evolution, as in a theory. That's what's dead. Silver Asiatic

ET said: "Yes, timothya, your referenced contexts has nothing to do with the topic. There wasn’t any debate" But this is what you said previously: "It is always the evos that start the belligerence, nonsense and lies. Always. And I am more than happy to mix it up with them because bullies only understand one way." I provided a bundle of links to articles where creationists started the argument - that is to say, those articles are examples where the creationists made the first sally and thus bear on this topic's question of whether or not the evolution debate is becoming “much more civil and thoughtful". I leave it to the readers to decide whether any of your nouns "belligerence, nonsense and lies" can be applied to the articles (or to the comments in reply wherever they are permitted) that I referenced. timothya

Amblyrhynchus, by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to classify something as a science, Darwinian evolution, (regardless of how many supposed 'scientists' support it), fails to qualify as a science!

Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

The primary reason why Darwinian evolution lacks any of the rigor that is usually associated with the hard sciences is because Darwinian evolution has no mathematical model to test against. As Dr. Robert Marks states “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

And the primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon:

Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “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.”

The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) 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. ,,, And so that’s what I do 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. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, 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

Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “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.”

“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. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

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

In fact there is currently up to a 5 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

bornagain77

Ambly:

I just got back from a conference with more than a thousand evolutionary biologists.

Has any of them figured out a way to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes?

Pretty good turn out for a field of study that no longer exists, I would have thought?

Who is studying blind watchmaker evolution? What advances have they given us? ET

Yes, timothya, your referenced contexts has nothing to do with the topic. There wasn't any debate BTW there isn't any scientific theory of evolution so there really isn't anything to deny ET

per 18 and 19

Silver Asiatic ,,, I’d say acceptance and attempting to live by, the golden rule, is correlated with intelligence. 19 jdk "Then I am intelligent!"

So tell me jdk, are you a pro-abortion type of 'golden rule' atheist? If so, your words are meaningless. bornagain77

At the time of Dover Dembski was talking evolutionary simply not existing in 10 years.

I think he was proven right about that.

I just got back from a conference with more than a thousand evolutionary biologists. There will probably be more than 2000 at another meeting this month. Pretty good turn out for a field of study that no longer exists, I would have thought? Amblyrhynchus

ET: "earth to timothta- context is important" Yes it is. I just provided you with some. timothya

earth to timothta- context is important ET

ET: "Bob O’H is confused. It is always the evos that start the belligerence, nonsense and lies. Always. And I am more than happy to mix it up with them because bullies only understand one way." A small sample of counterfactuals (just from the last month): https://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/accent/from-the-pulpit-here-s-a-cure-for-school-shootings/article_b331b62e-96ce-11e8-adcd-c3b4d6d4922b.html http://www.altoonamirror.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2018/07/theory-of-evolution-can-be-denied/ http://www.dailypostathenian.com/community/religion/article_fcc6034b-27ba-5799-96cc-c8bf026a24ed.html https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/western-mail-letters-saturday-july-14939904 https://www.morrowcountysentinel.com/news/20487/pastor-column-bible-tells-truth-about-dinosaurs timothya

Kairosfocus: "PS: Let us not forget that Cases White and Yellow led Hitler and OKW to imagine that Russia could be a pushover. Big mistake. A word to those imagining that evolutionary materialistic scientism has become invincible." Yep. Godwin's Rule applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law?wprov=sfla1 timothya

Over on Joshua Swamidass's new forum it is all civil and thoughtful as long as you agree with their blatant misrepresentations of ID, caricatures of IC and a cartoon version of evolution. The cartoon version of evolution denies that modern evolution posits blind and mindless processes and includes telic processes. Show them evidence otherwise and it either gets ignored or you get a hand-wave, jedi style. They still have no idea that ID is OK with telic evolutionary processes. And they think if they show a simple IC system evolving then all IC is refuted. Yet they don't understand that IC is an argument against blind watchmaker evolution. Josh's "evidence" that chimps and humans share a common ancestor is that rats and mice share one and they are more genetically different than chimps and humans. He cannot understand how that can be even though evolution by design with recombination can easily explain the genetics. He just ignores that. Disagree and argue against them at your own peril. And when you try to correct blatant misrepresentations and people putting words in your mouth you will be heavily moderated. ET

Bob O'H is confused. It is always the evos that start the belligerence, nonsense and lies. Always. And I am more than happy to mix it up with them because bullies only understand one way. ET

Earth to Amblky- There isn't anything in peer-review that supports blind watchmaker evolution. The evos lied at the Dover trial and the ignorant judge was fooled by a literature bluff ET

...you can name two new followers and producing papers (in a hosue-journal…) at the rate you’d expect for a PhD student. And you think things ahve got better in that time?

The DI has a list of scientists. More than two. I hadn't checked it in a long time - includes scientists now from 14 countries which is a dozen more than 10 years ago. Peer reviewed papers - the quantity has increased. I believe at Dover it was claimed that there were none.

At the time of Dover Dembski was talking evolutionary simply not existing in 10 years.

I think he was proven right about that. Silver Asiatic

So, if by “dead” you mean “attracting competent and respected scientists” and “being confirmed continually with failures in evolutionary claims”, then yes again. You’re quite right.

I mean... you are talking about two people. At the time of Dover Dembski was talking evolutionary simply not existing in 10 years. 10 years late you can name two new followers and producing papers (in a hosue-journal...) at the rate you'd expect for a PhD student. And you think things ahve got better in that time? Amblyrhynchus

This is one of the most mind-blowing things I’ve read here.

I guess I really shocked you with that.

Since Dover the ID-as-a-science claim has all but died.

If by "died" you mean "rendered illegal" or "opposed with irrational hostility and threats" then yes. Dead indeed. Congratulations. But nobody has refuted Behe's or Meyer's work. We just saw a prominent scientist from Germany become an advocate of ID. That wasn't supposed to happen, remember? ID is just an American phenomenon for Bible creationists, supposedly. How about "distinguished Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola" - just published a book this year advocating "ID as science". So, if by "dead" you mean "attracting competent and respected scientists" and "being confirmed continually with failures in evolutionary claims", then yes again. You're quite right. Silver Asiatic

PS: Let us not forget that Cases White and Yellow led Hitler and OKW to imagine that Russia could be a pushover. Big mistake. A word to those imagining that evolutionary materialistic scientism has become invincible. kairosfocus

Ambly, the design inference on empirically tested, reliable sign is scientific or else "scientific" has been reduced to being a meaningless ideological term assigned by power of might and manipulation. And, beyond reasonable dispute, the Dover decision that the design inference on sign was stealth creationism was a kangaroo court imposition by way of a slightly modified copy-paste from ideologically driven parties without due regard to facts and merits. That the deceitful, disgraceful film Inherit the Wind seemed to have influenced the judge just multiplies the long-term discredit that marks that seemingly cheap victory for atheistical evolutionary materialistic scientism and its enablers or fellow travellers. Also, if you imply that naturalism [= a priori evolutionary materialism] obtains by default, delimiting reality, you have begged worldview level questions that it is no business of science to beg. KF kairosfocus

BA77, Berlinski's comment goes to the heart of the matter as it brings out the logic of being and the import that we necessarily have a world of abstract entities. KF kairosfocus

BO'H: I think you seriously need to take a look at the penumbra of attack sites. KF kairosfocus

I think back to Kitzmiller v. Dover, 13 years ago. I think the trial and results would be quite a lot different now.

This is one of the most mind-blowing things I've read here. The key question in the Dover trial was whether ID was science that could be uncoupled from creationism. Since Dover the ID-as-a-science claim has all but died. The movements potemkin journal has published only a little more than one paper per year, about the productivity you'd expect from a PhD student in evolutionary biology. So, it's fairly staggering to imagine someone has watched all this happen and thinks things have got better for ID over that time. Amblyrhynchus

Then I am intelligent! :-) jdk

jdk

However, I don’t think that is necessarily correlated with intelligence or knowledge.

Here is a rule I go by: "Being intelligent means doing smart things. Being unintelligent means doing stupid things." With that in mind, I'd say acceptance and attempting to live by, the golden rule, is correlated with intelligence. Silver Asiatic

Having discussions that are "much more civil" is not necessarily a good thing by itself. The old days may have been more honest and open. Retreating to echo-chambers can lead to complacency. Peace at all costs is not the goal. We should be interested in the truth, and we should pursue it continually, and change ourselves to accept it, regardless of how difficult that may be. There cannot be peace between blind-evolution and design. Conversations can be civil, and that is good, but not if it covers over differences and reaches compromises (as theistic evolution attempts). Silver Asiatic

Bob - but just in terms of sheer quantity, I'd think evolutionists outnumber IDists. So even if there were equal proportions of the uncivil in each group - the total numbers would be heavily weighted to evolution having the majority of uncivil behaviors. This site alone is not a good place to measure the whole debate. The same is probably true for Pharyngula or Panda's Thumb, etc. Silver Asiatic

SA @ 4 - I know there are a lot of people on both side who are uncivil, and that's been the case for as long as I've been following the debates. Certainly on this site, my impression is that most of the incivility has come from the ID side (we can go back to some of the comments of DaveScot, for example), but it was very different on Pharyngula. Bob O'H

Lots of people accept the golden rule as a principle worth living by - I certainly do. However, I don't think that is necessarily correlated with intelligence or knowledge. jdk

jdk, If you don’t have an objective moral standard (the “golden rule’) that’s a problem. john_a_designer

And exactly how do you tell which side of an argument has the people who are "not very intelligent, well informed nor ethically or intellectually honest."? jdk

The problem is that the internet has been taken over by trolls who are not very intelligent, well informed nor ethically or intellectually honest. How can you reason with such people? I can’t, which is why I engage them as little as possible. That’s not civility; that’s giving in and giving up because of frustration. john_a_designer

daveS, since the atheistic worldview denies that any real meaning, purpose and value, exists for life,,,

Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog Neuroscientist: Free will is an illusion but we should believe we have it - July 1, 2018 Excerpt: "To give yet another example, is there meaning in life? From a purely abstract philosophical perspective, I would have to say no. There is no objective source of meaning. But from a practical point of view I say – humans have a need for meaning, and we can make our own meaning in life. Sure, it’s subjective, but so what?" - Steven Novella https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/neuroscientist-free-will-is-an-illusion-but-we-should-believe-we-have-it/ So Novella claims he has no free will and that his life has no meaning but 'he chooses' to live his life as if he had free will and as if his life had meaning? (refutation of those beliefs, July 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/neuroscientist-free-will-is-an-illusion-but-we-should-believe-we-have-it/#comment-661132

,,, since the atheistic worldview denies that any real meaning, purpose and value, exists for life,,, I've often wondered why militant atheists, such as yourself, are so motivated to promote their atheistic worldview to the rest of us and/or to trash Christianity in particular. Exactly what is the purpose of you, and other atheists, to devote so much of your blogging time on the internet, to something that, according to your very own worldview, does not really even matter in the end? I can see where Christianity can ground such motivation to spread the 'good news' to people that life is not an accident and that life does not end at the grave, but I can find no such motivation within atheism to spread the 'bad news' that life is purposeless and meaningless. Perhaps you can help me understand, what is the payoff for you personally to continue, so fervently, to promote your 'meaningless' atheism to the rest of us?

"There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again." - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

Verse:

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

bornagain77

daveS Good points - I agree. The clash between atheists and creationists was very heated 10 years ago. The two groups had never come into that kind of close contact before. Agreed also about the difference with youngish adults. A lot of the argumentation of the past came from pre-internet adults who were more "literate" - in a book culture, than today. There are "debates" of sorts in the comment areas of Amazon.com or YouTube or news sites. There's still a lot of hostility from pro and anti-ID/Evolution sides. Perhaps evolutionists will say that ID, as a threat, was exaggerated. They've dismissed us. We say something similar - that evolution is dying. I think back to Kitzmiller v. Dover, 13 years ago. I think the trial and results would be quite a lot different now. Silver Asiatic

daveS, True. It would be interesting to see the age distribution on sites and forums like this. But we'd probably need something to compare it to. Mung

Mung, Yes, those too. One thing I didn't mention explicitly: I gather young-ish adults spend quite a bit of time binge-watching shows, facebooking, instagramming, and whatever else. 10--20 years ago, there wasn't as much "content" of that sort to consume. That leaves less time for things such as internet debates. daveS

Perhaps people realize no one is going to change their mind. Or that ID isn't just the same as Young Earth Creationism. Mung

Interesting to me at any rate was that the tone of response was much more civil and thoughtful than it was say, a decade ago.

I wonder if the changing internet landscape has something to do with this? I literally _never_ discuss my opinions about ID, evolution, creation, or religion with anyone in real life. Some of the internet venues that used to host in-depth debates on ID/evolution/creation no longer exist. This site is the only one I visit these days. Perhaps debating these issues is just not as popular as it once was, and therefore people just don't get as worked up about it as they did ~10 years ago? Or maybe they "spend" their incivility elsewhere. daveS

Bob - you think IDists have been the primary source of incivility in this debate? Silver Asiatic

as to this comment:

To judge by my mail, I suspect that many people, thanks to popular television, think of mutations as major changes that just happen, such perhaps as the rhino’s horn appearing all at once . In fact mutations are changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA that may produce a new protein. The mathematical likelihood of getting multiple mutations that just happen to engender a complex result is essentially zero. The mathematics is clear but not easily explained to a television audience, no matter how intelligent.

Indeed mathematics has not been kind to Darwinists in the least.

Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

In fact, besides mathematics showing Darwinian evolution to be virtually impossible, Darwinian evolution and the world of mathematics are also completely incompatible with each other. Darwinian evolution is based on a naturalistic and/or materialistic view of reality, called methodological naturalism, which holds that all possible scientific explanations for reality in general, and for biology in particular, are exhausted by purely natural and/or material explanations. Yet, completely contrary to that presupposition of Darwinian thought, Mathematics itself exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.

Platonic mathematical world - image https://image.slidesharecdn.com/quantuminformation2-120301000431-phpapp01/95/quantum-information-14-728.jpg?cb=1330561190 Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of self-refuting.

What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

And as David Berlinski states, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”

An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html

Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible, (by Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is further falsified by mathematics as being a scientific theory since Darwinism denies the very reality of one the thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place. bornagain77

I'm sure ET will be along any moment to back you up, SA. Bob O'H

The only uncivil participants in the debate were Darwinists. Now that they've lost, they decided to tone it down a little. Silver Asiatic