Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What makes citing problems with Darwinism heresy?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Cornelius Hunter at ENST:

Who is the author of the following statement?

In contrast [to trait loss], the gain of genetically complex traits appears harder, in that it requires the deployment of multiple gene products in a coordinated spatial and temporal manner. Obviously, this is unlikely to happen in a single step, because it requires potentially numerous changes at multiple loci.

If you guessed this was written by an advocate of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe describing irreducibly complex structures, you were wrong. It was evolutionist Sean Carroll and co-workers in a 2007 PNAS paper.

When a design person says it, it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research. More.

But isn’t that because the Darwinian is allowed to bafflegab his way out of the information dilemma by celebrating the awesome powers of natural selection?

See also: Law of Conservation of Information vs Darwinism

Comments
Okay. And my comment refers to your comment. (?) Every example of irreducible complexity is attacked by materialists. This is hardly news.Upright BiPed
April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
UB,
Interesting strategy. Perhaps repeating the problem in a dismissive tone helps ease the burden of an coherent answer.
My comment refers only to the following statement OP.
Obviously, this is unlikely to happen in a single step, because it requires potentially numerous changes at multiple loci. [from the article]
Followed by Hunter's statement:
When a design person says it, it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research.
Unless he has examples of design people being chastised for saying that it is unlikely for a complex multi-protein structure to evolve in a single step, then he is just suggesting a double standard that does not exist.Allan Keith
April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Evolutionists have never suggesting that complex, multi-protein structures arose in a single step.
Interesting strategy. Perhaps repeating the problem in a dismissive tone helps ease the burden of an coherent answer.Upright BiPed
April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
What “information dilemma” would that be?
That would be the one where information is made possible to begin with, so that we can all be here talking about it -- i.e. the one where enough symbol vehicles and non-integrable constraints are coordinated together in order to have the capacity required for the organization to describe itself and implement the physical interpretation of its description.Upright BiPed
April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
When a design person says it, it is heresy. When an evolutionist says it, it is the stuff of good solid scientific research. I don't see what is so controversial here. Evolutionists have never suggesting that complex, multi-protein structures arose in a single step.
Allan Keith
April 18, 2018
April
04
Apr
18
18
2018
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
What "information dilemma" would that be?Seversky
April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
When evolutionist says it-- "Science!" When ID says it-- "Creationism in a cheap suit!"Latemarch
April 17, 2018
April
04
Apr
17
17
2018
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply