Darwinist simultaneously criticizes ID for lack of testability, while citing his own imagination for evidence of evolution

_{Jonathan Bartlett

April 3, 2021

Intelligent Design}

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

I wish I were kidding. But I’m not. You must listen to the whole thing.

Outnumbered: Stephen Meyer Debates a Chemist and a Biologist

Comments

Some quick thoughts using a physics parallel: Evolution is a "parity" operation: that is, in its positive direction it works just as it does in its negative direction. Secondly, the argument comes down to this: Big Bang versus Steady-State Universe (cosmological constant). Was the Cambrian Explosion a "Big Bang" event, or, per Darwin, simply a marker point in a 'changing' "Steady-State Universe" of organisms. The host's greatest concern and hot topic was this: evolutionary theory gives us something that we can tinker with in the lab and fits what we think of science. OTOH, ID simply "posits" an intelligent agent to fill in our "ignorance." Darwin's "changing" SSU (Steady-State Universe) is predicated on his hypothesis of a "Law of Divergence," which says that as life forms "evolve," the more "fit" descendent replaces its ancestor, and hence a 'positive' evolution occurs. Wallace was convinced that he had seen this "Law of Divergence" take place in Malaysia (beetles) and wrote to Darwin. Now with seeming evidence in hand of this Law of Divergence, Darwin eagerly wanted to publish. So, is evolution a 'changing' SSU, or is life a Big Bang with subsequent 'negative' evolution? That's the fundamental argument. Behe shows quite clearly that 'negative' evolution is likely to happen before 'positive' evolution will occur. The Cambrian Explosion looks more and more like a Big Bang event. Other Big Bang events occur in the fossil record, e.g., flowering plants, birds, etc. And the evidence that might have supported Darwin's SSU thinking has not surfaced and, at this point, doesn't look like it will ever appear. I once made a prediction based on ID years ago. I said that the transplanted lizards in the Adriatic Sea could not have developed cecal valves via neo-Darwinian methods. I said that the most likely explanation was that these lizards--identical genetically to those from the original island, developed these valves via a changed vegetation and that putting these lizards in a lab and controlling their diets would 'cause' cecal valves to grow. The experiment was conducted. And, exactly as I had predicted, with a changed diet, the lizards developed cecal valves in less than three months. Of course, good luck finding this experiment. Just imagine: a proposed experiment in the lab based on ID predictions that turned out just as predicted. Don't want to publish that kind of rot. Clearly, the genome of these lizards have variable expression and their diet can cause via, likely, epigenetic means. It's not just "Junk DNA" that ID successfully predicted, it's much much more. Yes, ID can be used in the lab. The radio host can "tinker" all he likes. He just has to change his way of thinking about how genetics works. My prediction supports a SSU way of thinking--so, this is something that nature does exhibit; but, the origin of these "subroutines," as I like to call them, requires a Big Bang Event. These variable phenotypic expressions are not amenable to step-by-step evolutionary processes.PaV_{April 5, 2021
April
04
Apr
5
05
2021
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

It did come out in this interview near the end that the Darwin supporters don’t have anything. They can only criticize and then speculate that what they believe is right may be possibly proved in the future. They want to have their dogma taken as the standard without any proof while criticizing a more logical approach for lack of research. Sort of hypocritical. My guess is that both sides thought they won. The average person would not have a clue what went on without someone pointing out the hypocrisy of those advocating Darwinism.jerry_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Polistra - I disagree. I think this was wonderful. While I could be wrong, I can't imagine how someone who didn't know anything about ID wouldn't come out of this thinking, "obviously the detractors from ID don't know the first thing about it."johnnyb_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Meyer held his own fairly well against three supercilious arrogant bullies who showed at every stage that they didn't even start to understand the ideas under consideration. But it was a useless discussion. Too much like the standard "Fair And Balanced" cable TV crap where a collection of bullies shout down the sensible idea. There's no way a listener can learn anything from this Alinsky approach.polistra_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply