Canadian vendor of Darwin’s certainties strikes back against O’Leary

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 19, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Yes, Calgary Herald columnist Rob Breakenridge has felt the need to respond to my response to his abuse of anyone who does not worship Darwin.

Could anyone here help Breakenridge’s readers understand better why the world in general does not worship Darwin?

Comments

Hmmm. I am interested in conversation. I also think there's a pretty good chance that I've hung out at UD and its precursors (ISCID and ARN) at least as long as you and most of the posters here have. Also, I don't think you probably know much about whether I "know or understand the criticisms leveled at atheism." I have no interest in boring anyone, but you made some claims that, as I have stated, I think are inaccurate about materialists - whether you or anyone else wants to have an interesting conversation about that is up to whoever wants to post. I also understand that "ID does not propound a theory of everything, of God and theology and Bible and Christology and angelology" - I don't believe I implied it did. What I did say is that there are people, theistic evolutionists as well as people with other types of religious beliefs, who are derided here and yet who believe that it is ID that is wrong theologically. This is also a potential topic of conversation. Even though it was your comment that prompted part of my post, if you believe that you wouldn't want to subject others to a boring conversation with someone who is not up to speed, and hasn't been around long enough or is not well read enough, to be part of an interesting conversation, then simply don't engage in one. That's your choice.Jack Krebs_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Jack, You seem to want a conversation---which is good. But you sound like someone who hasn't hung out here at UD very long. I would suggest you go back and read up on why ID does not propound a theory of everything, of God and theology and Bible and Christology and angelology, of why it is that no one dictates positions on the age of the Cosmos, common descent, the validity of the Big Bang. Also you seem not to know or understand the criticisms leveled at atheism. Read up on it and then maybe we won’t have to have the same, tired old conversations we’ve all heard a zillion times. There're some pretty sharp cookies here---you want we should bore them?Rude_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Why do you think materialists "seldom or never go to funerals, and they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought." Just because one doesn't believe in God or some other non-material aspect to the universe doesn't mean that one isn't going to feel the wonder of birth and of the opportunity to be alive as well as the sorrow of death. Given that materialists grow up in culture suffused with non-materialism, I'm sure many of them feel that they have pondered the big questions and found the answers given by the mainstream religious culture inadequate. On a related note, in an earlier post, CEC09 wrote to Denyse,
I find it interesting that someone who readily attributes patterns in nature to one or more entities with goals and intelligence should complain about anthropomorphism. Personally, I’m more worried about those who make God into people (three in one) than those who make birds into people. Making too little of God is a much worse error than making too much of birds.
I like the last line. One of the theological objections to ID has been that it makes too little of God - God as a tinkerer rather than God as a grand overarching spiritual presence for whom all the natural world (evolution included) is a manifestation of his presence. And yet most of the people here think as about as little of the theistic evolutionists as they do the materialists, and in both cases, I think, the positions of these folks (theistic evolutionists and materialists) are trivialized, stereotyped, and dismissed. I think this does a disservice to countless people who have thought as deeply and intelligently as IDists have, but have reached different conclusions about "the big questions."Jack Krebs_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, The ones I'm talking about are the materialists that dominate the academy. Not only have they nothing to contribute in regard to purpose, they will fight anyone who dares doubt Darwin and thus opens the door to purpose and design.Rude_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

CECO9: Allen MacNeill is not alone. There are others who think NS is an effect, including some of the heavy hitters like Provine. I did not say that natural selection is a tautology, (though that's not a bad guess) I said that is it one of four explanations being offered, which is good reason to suspect that three of them are wrong. That is another way of saying that we don't know nearly as much about natural selection as we think we do.StephenB_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
That natural selection “occurs” is beyond doubt; that is can drive the engine of evolution is well within the range of reasonable doubt. Indeed, some are beginning to say that natural selecction can do almost nothing—that it is simply an “effect,” or a “description,” or dare I say it, a tautology.
You seem to allude to comments by Allen MacNeill. He explained that Darwin identified natural selection as an effect. 'Tis new to thee. The concept of natural selection is not tautological. Darwin needed a way to say that there is selection of "preferred" forms in nature as in breeding, but without a breeder expressing preference. Tautology may rear its ugly head when one tries to explain that some forms are more likely to survive than others because they are more fit.CEC09_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

O'Leary, I find it interesting that someone who readily attributes patterns in nature to one or more entities with goals and intelligence should complain about anthropomorphism. Personally, I'm more worried about those who make God into people (three in one) than those who make birds into people. Making too little of God is a much worse error than making too much of birds.CEC09_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

bfast: You make an extremely important point: -----"If science proves that natural selection is a tool used by nature for population balancing, in light of all of the gifts that have been attributed to natural selection, is it reasonable to respond to this story by saying, “it provides … the proof of evolution” That natural selection "occurs" is beyond doubt; that is can drive the engine of evolution is well within the range of reasonable doubt. Indeed, some are beginning to say that natural selecction can do almost nothing---that it is simply an "effect," or a "description," or dare I say it, a tautology.StephenB_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

I think there are some inaccurate and unfair stereotypes here. The one that stands out the most is "they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought." I think many of the people you are ostensibly talking about give plenty of thought to the "big questions." Some of them come up with different answers then you do, but that's not because they aren't moved by the big questions.Jack Krebs_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

My sense is that our cultural elites have not only been indoctrinated, they live in a world apart. Their colleagues and friends are all about their own age—there is no community, not even such as Church going folks experience. They likely don’t even know anyone who thinks differently—they experience no controversy until we come along. They seldom or never go to funerals, and they seldom or never give the big questions of life any thought. They’re just too busy. They have careers, and they must spend time keeping in shape physically. They feel knowledgeable in their own narrow fields and they assume such is true of others—such as in biology. Though they have nothing but fear and loathing for “the religious right” and the US President, they really do believe in “the system”—that is, the radical elitism that conquered the academy and the culture in the Sixties. I’m reminded of the BBC TV series, Yes, Prime Minister. The last thing the politico wants to hear is, “That would be very courageous, sir.” Protected and coddled in our democracies, courage—especially intellectual courage—is just about the furthest thing from our elitists. And therefore I take my hat off to the likes of O’Leary and Dembski and all the others who, having the ability and education to be given a place at the table, they have chosen courage. But maybe there is some wisdom here too, for who really knows about the average run-of-the-mill elitist, and from the long view of history those who laid the ground work for the overthrow of materialism will certainly be remembered.Rude_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Does anyone else find it strange that the original Darwinist letter is published by the Herald online but then Denyse's response is not? And then two Darwinist responses to Denyse are published online. Is there a publishing ban on anything critical of Darwin? Two more Darwinist letters in the Herald. William Brookfield_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

It is all they have. So they cling to it, as a drowning person would (wisely) cling to two inverted styrofoam cups. Quite another matter is when the drowning person insists that we regard his two styrofoam cups as the Queen Mary. The main problem is - you realize - these people have control of the education system, and thousands rise to praise Darwin's name who have no idea what nonsense they are being asked to underwrite.O'Leary_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

My favorite line from Breakenridge's article is the following where he quotes Dr. Magerus:
"If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution"
(emphasis mine) What a statement, "it provides ... the proof of evolution"! I have always puzzled over the peppered moth. Though I recognize that the photos in the text books were fabricated, unfabricated photos showing the phenomenon would not be surprising, nor in any way disconcerting to the ID perspective, or the YEC perspective for that matter. Though we recognize that the photographs were doctored, does that prove that the peppered moth story is a myth? No, but it doesn't give us confidence in the science. Does the peppered moth story illustrate natural selection at work? Yes. Consider that the story is fully true. What has been proven? Has it been proven that natural selection can play a critical role in nature's novelty? No. Has it been proven that natural selection acts as a DNA preservative. No, even though I expect that natural selection does play that role, it isn't demonstrated in this study. Does it show natural selection as a tool for population balancing? Yes. Yes, that's all it shows. Does it establish that natural selection is the only tool for population balancing. No! If science proves that natural selection is a tool used by nature for population balancing, in light of all of the gifts that have been attributed to natural selection, is it reasonable to respond to this story by saying, "it provides ... the proof of evolution" DON'T BE REDICULOUS!bFast_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Nice work, Denyse, and others on this one - a very clear rebuttal and some excellent responses (to the latest response) beneath Breakenridge’s tirade. I've been equally impressed of late just how some pro-Darwinians and others (agnostics) have spoken up to say either ID DOES have something to say or Dawkins & Co are comprehensively wrong in their critique of other (i.e. religious) world views. Could it be that the tide is turning? It most certainly needs to.howard_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Aha; further proof, if any were needed, that Darwinism is bird-brained in every sense of the word...Stephen Morris_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

The guy goes on an elephant hurling post citing pharyngula all the way over just to convince already convinced pharyngula worshippers.MaxAug_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

jjcssidy, Breakenridge's research assistant probably did not read the material I was referencing - and linked here (as well as at the Post-D): Experiments showed that birds did not care whether the spots, however created, looked like eyes or not. Thus there is not likely any "evolution" of the spots toward looking like eyes. The whole Darwinian construct in this area, in my view, springs from the notion that birds are feathered people. Therefore, what we think is an evolutionary selection advantage must be one. Fast forward to the deluxe leatherbound edition Darwinian Fairy Tales, of which Breakenridge appears to have collected the entire gold-bricked set. As I said in the first of my dialogues with Steve Fuller, an ID-friendly science course would take pains to make clear that birds are NOT feathered people. They do not have brains organized like people's brains. We cannot begin any study of bird adaptations by assuming that we understand how birds think - let alone by offering to do their avian thinking for them. That is precisely what the Darwinians have so disastrously done with the peacock tale, the peppered moth tale, the Monarch-Viceroy tale, the eye spots tale, and so forth.O'Leary_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

"Why does he have a problem teaching [microevolution as it relates to peppered moths]?" Because it's fraudulent, just like Haeckel's embryos and Piltdown Man. If scientists already have incontrovertible evidence of evolution, as they claim, why on earth do they damage their credibility by resorting to outright fraud in order to prove their theory? From the comments: "Her abusive tone and irritating prose seem to indicate that she is suffering from kind of persecution complex combined with delusions of grandeur." Really? I think the same thing of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.Barb_{August 20, 2008
August
08
Aug
20
20
2008
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Breakenridge's "ability" to argue by quoting: He quotes this from you:
The eye spots on butterflies’ wings did not evolve to scare birds by resembling the eyes of their predators
Which he "refutes" by quoting:
By comparing among species the molecular machinery that controls wing development, the researchers are revealing how the regulation of two key genes has evolved in association with specific color patterns. The color patterns they studied vary among species, existing in a continuum including simple lines, teardrops and rounded spots.
Apparently that only refutes the "The butterflies do not have colored markings" part of your statement--which is unfortunate...because that's not what you said. But of course, you said it "did not evolve", which is equivalent to saying it is not there. Besides the markings exist "in a continuum" then there is hardly much to be said for the distinct advantage of "eye spots". I always love it when you're debating with somebody and they refute a point you didn't make by reference ot something totally irrelevant to what you said or slightly helpful to your point.jjcassidy_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Because it is a never ending "long argument"...Enezio E. De Almeida Filho_{August 19, 2008
August
08
Aug
19
19
2008
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply