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

hunter (21):
The theory was presented as not a fact (or anything close) and the scientific problems with evolution and at least some of its many fundamental and false predictions were presented?
The theory was presented as the current theory in both classes. The evidence/data/facts were presented as fact. During the AP Bio course in high school (this was 1974, Berkeley High School, Berkeley CA, Mr. Panasenko): There was mention of some of Darwins predictions that came out wrong. Some discussion on how the theory developed over time... a bit of the history. There was discussion on Haeckel's Embryos and how Haeckel had it wrong. There was discussion of Lamarck. There was even discussion of Endosymbiosis. The facts were presented as, well... facts. The theory as the explanation for those facts. In the Intro to Evolutionary Biology class (1976, UCB, taught mainly by grad students) there simply wasn't enough time to cover any problems with the current theory. In my high school AP class the teacher sometimes joked about finding transitional forms in the fossil record and how it always led to two more gaps. He also joked that Lamarckism didn't work as was obvious by experiments in stimulating ones self. Regardless of desire and exercise the organ did not remain any bigger than before. In the high school class and, to a lesser extent, in the college class there was some discussion on what was not yet known (abiogenesis for one) and what had been done and what was being done in those areas. All in all, the teaching methods and content of the courses was not any different than chemistry, physics or astronomy. Undergraduate courses in astronomy tend to be pretty light since a great deal of math and physics is required to cover it in more detail. I was fortunate to have an Intro Astronomy professor who got his PhD in Astronomy and taught Physics regularly; that and the class was primarily Physics majors. So we covered astronomy in greater detail with more rigour than is typical for such courses. This was all back in the 1970s. I would be interested in taking more a more current Evolutionary Biology course at some point. I majored in Engineering Physics and the Intro to Evo Bio course was the last Evolution/biology class I ever took. -DU-utidjian_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

The answer to the OP is yes. Delusional AND in denial.
Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.
From Biosemiotic Research Trends Dr. Hunter, I think you would truly enjoy reading some of the material over at http://lifeorigin.info/ And thanks for you continued intelligent refuting and exposing of the Darwinian fundamentalists and their high priests.Borne_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Nice post. It's all about religion and it has always been. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having religion. It's a problem only if your chosen religion is wrong. Right now, we're just going through an elimination process. The best religion is the one that wins in the end.Mapou_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, 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?Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
Do any of those textbooks discuss universal common descent?
what do you think?
Do they present it as accepted fact?
they present it as a serious scientific theory, backed by textbooks full of data.
And do any of those textbooks discuss mechanisms?
I would say about half of each one is composed of discussions of mechanisms.Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Khan (19):
I have 4 Evolution textbooks in front of me right now (Futuyma, Freeman/Herron, Ridley, Strickberger). Pick any one and tell me how it does not present evolution in a scholarly, scientific manner.
I'll use Ridley, Blackwell, 1993. You can read through Chapter 3 ("The evidence for evolution") and find many metaphysical claims. For example, middle of page 46:
If species have descended from common ancestors, homologies make sense; but if all species originated separately, it is difficult to understand why they should share homologous similarities. Without evolution, there is nothing forcing the tetrapods all to have pentadactyl limbs.
This is precisely what Sober calls Darwin's Principle. The theory is scientifically absurd, but it must be true.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Cabal,
I am left with the understanding that Intelligent Design is more or less in agreement with evolutionary theory with respect to the historical development of life on Earth.
The ID movement is a bit more diverse than that. It includes both old and young-earth theorists (John Sanford is in the latter category). There are those who accept common descent and those who reject it. What unifies us all is the belief that Design can be inferred in certain structures using information theory.
It therefore strikes me as somewhat odd that a creator of such intricate and highly optimized design would make what seems like an obvious mistake like the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
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.herb_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, What experimental results demonstrate eyes and vison systems can evolve to the extent the ToE requires?Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Khan, Do any of those textbooks discuss universal common descent? Do they present it as accepted fact? And do any of those textbooks discuss mechanisms?Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

utidjian (17):
That is exactly how my high school AP Biology teacher taught it and how my Intro to Evo Biology prof taught it in college. There were no displayed “religious convictions” in either class.
The theory was presented as not a fact (or anything close) and the scientific problems with evolution and at least some of its many fundamental and false predictions were presented?Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, But if the professor teaches from a scholarly perspective, where the evolutionary theory is explained alongside the data, then the professor is not displaying religious convictions. Do you know of any? I was just browsing through Selection: the Mechanism of Evolution, 2nd ed., by Graham Bell, over the weekend. It was extensively correlated with experimental results. Do you know a university level course in evolution that only doesn't have a textbook like that, and require reading it? (Good book, BTW, but expensive.) ;)Nakashima_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Cornelius,
I have never seen the theory of evolution presented from a scholarly, scientific perspective. I have looked at a wide spectrum of textbooks (junior high level, high school level, junior college level, university level).
I have 4 Evolution textbooks in front of me right now (Futuyma, Freeman/Herron, Ridley, Strickberger). Pick any one and tell me how it does not present evolution in a scholarly, scientific manner.
Of course I have attended my share of classes
how many? where? when? enough to get a representative sample?Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Khan (13):

But if the professor teaches from a scholarly perspective, where the evolutionary theory is explained alongside the data, then the professor is not displaying religious convictions. But evolutionists rarely do this.
what evidence do you have for this claim? how many university-level evolution lectures have you seen recently?
I was being generous. I have never seen the theory of evolution presented from a scholarly, scientific perspective. I have looked at a wide spectrum of textbooks (junior high level, high school level, junior college level, university level). Of course I have attended my share of classes, but I have discussed this with many other folks as well. I have never heard of an evolutionist presenting the theory from a scholarly, scientific perspective. While I have looked at many textbooks, of course my sample of particular courses is limited. I hear no evidence that there is a substantial population out there of courses that go against the grain, but there well could be a few. I'd be delighted to hear that there are more that have gone unnoticed. So yes, my comment was subjective, but I suspect it was generous.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Joseph, That is exactly how my high school AP Biology teacher taught it and how my Intro to Evo Biology prof taught it in college. There were no displayed "religious convictions" in either class. Why would there be? -DU-utidjian_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Khan, I believe that is what evolutionists do "make stuff up". ;) But I understand your point.
But if the professor teaches from a scholarly perspective, where the evolutionary theory is explained alongside the data, then the professor is not displaying religious convictions.
Do you know of any?Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Joseph, In order to make the claim that something is rare, you have to extensively look for that thing and then not find it very often. the only way Cornelius can back up his claim is to attend multiple evolution lectures at multiple universities, identify criteria for assigning each style of teaching evolution and run statistics on his results. otherwise, he is doing what is generally called "making stuff up."Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Khan, There isn't any such data- that is the evidence for the claim. The "evidence" for the evolution of the eye/ vision system is the same now as it was in Darwin's day- IOW no one knows if eyes nor vision systems can evolve. IOW anyone who lectures on anything more that slight variations is doing so sans data.Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Cornelius,
But evolutionists rarely do this.
what evidence do you have for this claim? how many university-level evolution lectures have you seen recently?Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

MeganC (1):
What would qualify as a non-religious argument in your opinion?
I just answered a similar question, so let me paste in my answer to that question (in simplified form) to get things started: -----------
When a professor teaches a process of evolution that uses completely mechanistic forces to arrive at the species we observe, are they in your view displaying religious convictions?
Your question avoids the crux of the matter. It would be like asking: If a professor teaches Hinduism, is he displaying religious convictions? Obviously, the answer is “It depends.” What is the professor saying about Hinduism (or the species)? One can teach from a scholarly perspective, or from a religious-advocacy perspective (which is what evolutionists do). When evolutionists teach that evolution is a fact then, yes, they are displaying religious convictions. But if the professor teaches from a scholarly perspective, where the evolutionary theory is explained alongside the data, then the professor is not displaying religious convictions. But evolutionists rarely do this. --------Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

The problem with doctor PZ Myers is that his articles (which he produces every two hours 24/7/365 unless he sleeps) deals more with spreading aggresive atheistic propaganda and bizzare naturalistic teaching called darwinism than something valuable. When he deals with biological problems he always support darwinian explanations - however curious they may be. Like his textbook-explanation of descent of testicles. I've dealt with the problem on my venue, entry: "Adolf Portmann and two poles of Vertebrata " http://cadra.wordpress.com/VMartin_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."
Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Perhaps to Behe but that only relates to him and his opinion. Many people I know say that ID is a slam against "God".Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
It is also a fact thta ID does not require a belief in “God”.
but according to Behe it makes a lot more sense if you do.Khan_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

90DegreeAngel, At Dover it is true the school board had religious motivations. It is also clear that said school board didn't understand ID. As a matter of fact the defense nor the judge didn't understand it either. It is also a fact thta ID does not require a belief in "God".Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

I was introduced to ID by Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and I have read it many times. I am left with the understanding that Intelligent Design is more or less in agreement with evolutionary theory with respect to the historical development of life on Earth. It seems that Behe accept common descent but claim that some features, for instance the bacterial flagellum, are too complex to be the result of natural processes. They must be a product of Intelligent Design. It therefore strikes me as somewhat odd that a creator of such intricate and highly optimized design would make what seems like an obvious mistake like the recurrent laryngeal nerve. According to Hunter, “nature's organisms do not look as though they evolved.” We are drawing inferences from what we find in biology, like the inference that bacterial flagellum look designed. We likewise infer that the recurrent laryngeal nerve was designed. Am I alone in seeing a dichotomy here? If nature’s organisms do not look evolved, does that mean they look designed? If that is the case, maybe we can say: “Of course, imperfect designs make sense in Intelligent Design. So do perfect designs, and everything in between. These make sense in Intelligent Design just as my bad day yesterday make sense in astrology and warp drive makes sense in science fiction movies.” I am confused and don’t know what to believe.Cabal_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Patrick your not trying to say that ID isn't religious because a person prefaces their comments and says something like, "while I am a religious person, the argument I am about to make is not religious." You say that Dr. Dembski makes this type of distinction and therefore is free of religious bias when dealing with the science of ID. But others, by not making this declaratory statement or engaging in religiously motivated pseudoscience because they do not make this distinction. Isn't this verbal acknowledgment, really pointless. The only thing that matters are the actual data that the scientists has collected and put forward. Now at Dover both sides had to show that their arguments were not religious. The ID side failed. I admit that if Dr. Dembski had been able to implement his Wedge startegy that he and his students came up with it would have been a different situation. But nonetheless, ID lost. It was shown to be religious, while science was found to be free of religious assumptions. I am in agreement that neither party is lying. In your opinion are you a truthful traitor or a loyal liar?90DegreeAngel_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

To be fair, similar charges have been made against Bill Dembski. The response was that Bill has earned degrees in both science and theology, and will of course make statements relative to each discipline. The difference, of course, is that Bill makes this distinction clear while these guys are saying that "their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all". I don't see this as "lying" per se since in their minds their beliefs constitute reality. To make a clear distinction would not make sense within the confines of that worldview. So you can call it absurd, but I don't believe they're purposefully lying.Patrick_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

The length of nerves has to do with timing. Also one has to remember that the organisms we are observing today are not the originally designed organisms. Rather what we observe today are the effects of random processes on that original design.Joseph_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Are they delusional or just in denial? Oh, and have they stopped beating their wives? Way to limit the choices; I think that's called poisoning the well.Anthony09_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Is Cornelius' Hunter's behaviour acceptable? He accuses evolutionists of being liars when he has no evidence of it. Even if you assume Hunter is right (which I certainly don't) there is no reason to assume evolutionists are lying - why not just mistaken? Would behavious like this be accepted if evolutionists were doing it?Gaz_{July 27, 2009
July
07
Jul
27
27
2009
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply