Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job. He writes that evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, “need to think about [their theological arguments] more deeply.” In one moment evolutionists make religious arguments and in the next they claim their theory is “just science.” Their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all. Gee, that was easy. In light of such absurdity, I don’t have much confidence that evolutionists are going to think more deeply about this. But it would be nice if they would stop misrepresenting science. And it would be nice if they would stop using their credentials to mislead the public. In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying.

Continue reading here.

Comments

90DegreeAngel,
The simple answer to CH’s question at 59 is that it is a fact because it has been observed. This means that one can see changes in allele frequency over time and measure this. That is a fact.
Note that Cornelius is talking about evolution, not changes in allele frequencies.herb_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

The simple answer to CH's question at 59 is that it is a fact because it has been observed. This means that one can see changes in allele frequency over time and measure this. That is a fact. I'm sure your already familiar with the work of Lenski. Therefore evolution is a fact. It is a theory that explains the mechanisms behind diversity of living organisms observed on this planet.90DegreeAngel_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Khan (53):
the history of science is littered with ideas based on religious premises (e.g. geocentrism) being replaced by secular ideas. this happened because the data fit the secular idea better than the religious idea,
Here's another way to understand the distinction between evolution and, say, heliocentrism: Why is evolution claimed to be a fact, beyond any shadow of a doubt? Answering that question reveals the distinction.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

DU (49):
IDPs propose an intelligent designer that designs things with far more intelligence and perfection than we are currently capable of.
I didn't know that. Can you give an example if an IDP who says that?Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Oops. Please see here for more on the Copernican revolution.jlid_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Khan, Geocentrism was certainly not a religious idea, as Cornelius pointed out. It was a Greek philosophical/scientific idea that was later adopted by the church, as well as by just about every university (due to Aristotle's influence). As it turns out, Copernicus did not have any evidence for heliocentrism. For more, please see here.jlid_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Khan (53):
I’m just demonstrating the absurdity of your arguments. the history of science is littered with ideas based on religious premises (e.g. geocentrism) being replaced by secular ideas. this happened because the data fit the secular idea better than the religious idea, as the scientists who collected the data pointed out.
Hmmm, where to begin. First off, geocentrism is not a religious idea. Second, heliocentrism did not replace it because it fit the data better. Third, evolution is not a secular idea--it is based on religious mandates for naturalistic explanations, as "Darwin's Principle" shows and as exemplified lately by Coyne. Fourth, the empirical evidence contradicts evolution: www.DarwinsPredictions.comCornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

A delusion is a strongly held belief that is contrary to evidential reality. Most delusional people hold beliefs that are not rational, and are not held by 100% of others around them. In other words, they are unique beliefs. So I don't think that Darwinists fit with both the definition and the common characteristics. I don't believe that most Darwinists are in denial, either. I think that they hold on to the status quo until strong evidence to the contrary is presented. PZ Meyers and others like him do not fit into that category, because he at least has seen the evidence to the contrary. I would have to say then that he is in denial, and is suppressing the evidence for motives that are unclear at this time. As Dr. Meyer illustrated in Chapter 12 of Signature in the Cell, these Darwinists are failing to think outside the box: Dr. Meyer illustrates this by Columbus challenging his doubters (of the new world) to balance an egg on its head. None of them could do it, so Columbus broke the end of the egg and allowed it to stand. He thought outside the box. All of the others who tried were operating within the parameters that they thought were the only reasonable and acceptable ones. This is exactly what the Darwinists are doing.CannuckianYankee_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Cornelius,
You are using a strawman. You are defining a theory as religious if it has religious implications. Since many theories have such implications, evolution is just one among many, so don’t worry about the fact that it is based on religious premises.
actually, I'm just demonstrating the absurdity of your arguments. the history of science is littered with ideas based on religious premises (e.g. geocentrism) being replaced by secular ideas. this happened because the data fit the secular idea better than the religious idea, as the scientists who collected the data pointed out. does this mean that all of these secular ideas are in fact religious simply because they mention the religious idea? if so, then almost all science is religious. is this really what you want to say? it also seems like a very convenient way to avoid criticism of e.g. ID arguments, because as soon as a scientist brings them up, you can automatically say they are making a religious argument.Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Khan (43): I guess I should watch more Simpsons, or TV for that matter. OK... I get it I think. So when we went to the South pole and didn't find a stack of turtles or elephants (or whatever) the simple scientific observation refuted the religious claim. Similarly, at the North pole, no Santa shack or toy factory. So when we find what appears to be poor (un-intelligent) design in nature it refutes the the notion that all things in nature are intelligently designed. At the same time we can show that the theory of evolution can provide an explanation for what appears to be poor design. -DU-utidjian_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

DU (49):
I thought the argument, as put forward by intelligent design proponents(IDPs), is that “Designer” is not necessarily a god. Am I mistaken?
Coyne and evolutionists are referring to creationism as well as design theory. With reference to ID, you could say the premise is "metaphysical" rather than "theological" if that works better for you. Either way, we're dealing with "Darwin's Principle" as Sober put it.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Angel (48):
First of all Coyne is not writing in a scientific journal, nor is he conducting scientific inquiry . . . Instead he commenting that this idea of special creation that was demolished by darwin and continues to survive in reigious circles today just doesn’t make sense based on their line of argumentation. If one adopted THEIR line of thinking, then the evidence just doesn’t support them . .. however the evidence does support the concept of evolution. HOW IS THAT A RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT???
You need to read what evolutionists are saying (or you could read the OP). You might also read Sober's paper. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/evolutions-religion-revealed.htmlCornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Cornelius (47):
Can you elaborate? How is it that “God wouldn’t design X” is not theological?
I thought the argument, as put forward by intelligent design proponents(IDPs), is that "Designer" is not necessarily a god. Am I mistaken? IMO, I don't think scientists nor theologians know if, how or what a god would design X. IDPs propose an intelligent designer that designs things with far more intelligence and perfection than we are currently capable of. Yet we find imperfect designs. What does that say about the design hypothesis? -DU-utidjian_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

First of all Coyne is not writing in a scientific journal, nor is he conducting scientific inquiry . . . Instead he commenting that this idea of special creation that was demolished by darwin and continues to survive in reigious circles today just doesn't make sense based on their line of argumentation. If one adopted THEIR line of thinking, then the evidence just doesn't support them . .. however the evidence does support the concept of evolution. HOW IS THAT A RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT???90DegreeAngel_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

DU (40):
Coyne is not making “theological arguments”
Can you elaborate? How is it that "God wouldn't design X" is not theological?Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Khan (39):
spontaneous generation was adopted by Christianity and many people (including Augustine) wrote about how it was compatible with Biblical teachings. so it does have religious implications, meaning that microbiology is also religious in nature.
You are using a strawman. You are defining a theory as religious if it has religious implications. Since many theories have such implications, evolution is just one among many, so don't worry about the fact that it is based on religious premises.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

BillB, he's not going to convince many people with this kind of argument: 1) Evolution is religion 2) If you don't agree with me, you are a liar, delusional or in denial QEDKhan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

If Evolution is religion then it shouldn't be taught in US schools - thats where I hypothesize Cornelius is going with all these posts - all he has to do is convince enough people first, sew the seeds, then get the lawyers back in ;)BillB_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

DU, onion on belt was a semi-obscure Simpsons reference..anyhoo..
Hunter, how do you delineate where the science stops and the theology begins?
Cornelius is arguing that because evolutionists sometimes compare their predictions with those of creationism and show that the former fit the data much better than the latter, that evolutionary biology is religious in nature. this is tortured logic and really shows ID is grasping at straws. again, if this logic holds then chemistry, astronomy and microbiology are also all religious in nature because they refute the religious concepts of alchemy, geocentrism and spontaneous generation. i guess that's the kind of argument you make when you've failed to provide a single test or even testable prediction..Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, I believe evolution attempts to simply explain the origin of the diverse life-forms we see on this planet. Originally, it was supposed that they were created, or the product of some sort of special creation as is. This view change and now there is evidence to suggest that all living organisms are related and have descended from a common ancestral stock. How is this a religious supposition? The evidence that supports this is clearly not religious, because you can go check it out, test it, look at results. You can replicate studies and based on the information that has been collected the theory of evolution makes sense. How is this religious???? I am a religious man, a Catholic, and I see NO religious motivations in the work that has led to this theory and the evidence that has been collected over the last 150 years that supports the theory of evolution. Dr. Hunter, you keep saying "oh its religious alright!!!" But you have NO sound reasoning. No logical argumentation. AND you ideas constantly get thrashed by those like Khan. Please sir!!! Explain yourself because right now it just sounds like bluster...90DegreeAngel_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

ID makes much more sense when argued on its merits, and Darwinism makes less sense when argued on its. Still I can't follow the "evolution is religious" idea. Yes, they occasionally draw contrasts to creationism, which isn't very scientific. And there's the optimistic faith in yet nonexistent evidence. But that's more dogmatic than outright religious. Comparing the two opposing viewpoints on their merits makes sense. But I think the idea that evolution is religious is a really, really hard sell, and I don't see what the benefit is.ScottAndrews_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

khan (33):
did you wear an onion on your belt, which was the style at the time?
Heh, no I don't remember that one. If I thought it would have helped and not also repelled members of the opposite sex, I certainly would have tried it ;-) Curiously I remember more about my HS class than the one in college. We had a lot of field trips that were really fun. I also took a couple of Field Bio classes with the same teacher. We are still friends after 35 years and chat online from time to time. Anyhow.... back to the OP: I have not seen PZ Myers or Jerry Coyne misrepresenting science. Coyne is not making "theological arguments" (that I can see) but he is making arguments about evolution vs "design." Are scientific arguments about "design theory" or "intelligent design" now theological arguments? Hunter, how do you delineate where the science stops and the theology begins? -DU-utidjian_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

ps Cornelius, spontaneous generation was adopted by Christianity and many people (including Augustine) wrote about how it was compatible with Biblical teachings. so it does have religious implications, meaning that microbiology is also religious in nature.Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

herb,
First, it’s not clear it’s a mistake, and second, irregardless of whether it’s a mistake or not, you’re making an assumption about what the intent of the Designer is.
I am not certain you read me right; i was referring to the fact(?) that we are dealing with what obviously must be an extraordinarily intelligent, competent and capable designer. Therefore, I can't help wondering about how such obviously poor design can happen? Besides, this isn't the only example; there are many similar oddities to be found all through the animal kingdom. The closest to me is the funny way the male gonad finds its position. From rather close to the heart in the embryo, during foetal development it moves down and pushes against the body wall to end with the scrotum. Weakening the body wall in the process, that's why we get hernia. Incidentally, the gonad's initial position in the embryo is the same as we find in fish. That is also what we would expect given the evolutionary paradigm. If the view of ID I find in this thread is representative I can only conclude that any design, good or bad, is compatible with Intelligent Design. Just like evolution. Is it irrelevant that evolutionary theory accounts for both good and bad features, while ID only can say "haven't got a clue"?Cabal_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Cornelius,
No, of course not. In this case you have solid evidence and no religious premises. Exactly the opposite of what you have with evolution.
do astronomy textbooks make religious claims because they mention geocentrism and how the data don't fit it?Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, your reply is almost completely substance-free.
It is all about god and religion.
do you deny that special creation was the accepted theory before to Darwin? should evolutionists simply ignore this fact?
Homologies do not provide positive evidence (there are significant problems with that argument
please explain.Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Khan (32):
I am looking through a microbiology textbook and it shows how Pasteur’s experiments demolished the idea of spontaneous generation and provided solid evidence for the idea of contamination by live organisms. does this mean that this textbook makes metaphysical claims as well?
No, of course not. In this case you have solid evidence and no religious premises. Exactly the opposite of what you have with evolution.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Khan (27):
Ridley here shows that homologies provide positive evidence for evolution and refute the specific claims of separate creation. as you know, separate creation was the accepted theory of the origin of species before Darwin. So it makes sense to show that not only does the data fit one theory, but does not fit the other theory. would you like the textbooks to pretend that special creation was never taken seriously?
This is a good example of the denialism in evolution. I point out evolution is a religious theory. The evolutionist denies it, asks for specifics. I supply them. Evolutionist says it doesn't matter. This religious reasoning runs all through the evolution genre. It is core to the reasoning. The Ridley quote comes right out of the history of evolutionary thought. It is all about god and religion. The science is absurd. Homologies do not provide positive evidence (there are significant problems with that argument). And as Sober points out (though it is obvious to anyone familiar with the evolution genre), the "fact" of evolution comes from metaphyical premises. If you cannot accept the obvious, then I am sorry for you.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

utidjian, did you wear an onion on your belt, which was the style at the time?Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, I am looking through a microbiology textbook and it shows how Pasteur's experiments demolished the idea of spontaneous generation and provided solid evidence for the idea of contamination by live organisms. does this mean that this textbook makes metaphysical claims as well?Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply