Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Future Scholars Will View Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Centuries from now, here is how a history book is likely to describe the theory of evolution:

As with many new paradigms, evolutionary thought developed over a lengthy period. Within the period known as Modern Science, which had its beginnings in the middle of the second millennium, evolutionary thought began to emerge in the mid seventeenth century. At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. These schools of thought contributed to what became known as The Enlightenment period in the eighteenth century which marked a major turning point in Western intellectual thought.

In The Enlightenment period theological and metaphysical positions became codified in Western thought. These positions became sufficiently accepted and familiar so as to be no longer in need of justification. Instead, Western thinking rapidly incorporated these positions as new truths. This new theology made strong commitments in the area of divine intent, action, and interaction with creation. The impact on science was profound as this theology mandated that God’s interactions with the world was to be strictly via secondary causes (i.e., natural laws), and that all of history must be governed solely by such causes. This paradigm later became known as Evolutionary Thought.

In Evolutionary Thought, science implicitly incorporated these theological and metaphysical commitments. Western, and by now worldwide, thought entered a dark age of anti intellectualism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this period all findings were described as evolutionary. Needless to say this was cause for ever more strained explanations of the evidence. Nonetheless, a rigid social and financial structure enforced adherence, complete with implicit penalties and harassment of dissenters.

Continued here

Comments
Hi Frost, You said recently:
"I hear you. You are saying there is no evidence “for” the supernatural designer. I say there is. I say because the design is so apparent and the comos so complex the designer must be super natural and the evidence is reveal by ID. This to me is science ..."
I suspect that confusion will arise because of your notion of what is science. Most scientists, when they call something science or scientific, are referring to ideas or hypotheses that are supported by the positive results of controlled and repeatable experiments. The evidence that you speak of does not flow from controlled study nor from repeatable experimentation. ("Controlled study" means studies that include valid positive and negative controls.)Arthur Hunt
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Icono, I hear you. You are saying there is no evidence "for" the supernatural designer. I say there is. I say because the design is so apparent and the comos so complex the designer must be super natural and the evidence is reveal by ID. This to me is science because we are still dealing with the natural (super) not the non-natural- and if you look at how powerful the designer would have to be- Alien or not- they would most likely be super natural. Now you make a faulty move in your logic. You say you are fine with ID inferring super natural design but that if the designer is "super natural" and we have no evidence “of it" (as in the actual designer) then it is off limits. But you already said ID can appeal to the super natural if the designer of ID most likely is thus. So you have contradicted yourself philosophically. You realized this later on by changing the allowance of science to appeal to a super natural designer and changed it to philosophy The reason why is because you have a poor philosophical grasp of "apperception" which is the objective synthesis of experience and perception. Thus you perceive no evidence "of" the super natural being, yes, but there is evidence "for" it- meaning we infer to it- Thus our experience reveals there is evidence in ID for a super natural designer- though maybe not "of" it- But even this is tentative and speculative, as we really know not what the designer is at all, it could be a natural law like intelligence built into the nature which if it is we would have evidence "of" it and "for" it because it is everywhere around us. I think you realized your contradiction mid post in post 62- post #62
" (Frost)"So my point is your claim that science cannot involve the supernatural is wrong…." (Icono) "Which, I repeat, is not my claim." "I do not object to I.D. on philosophical grounds,.."
as your being ok with ID as science and inferring to the supernatural (which is perfectly philosophically sound and hence from a philosophy of science stand point makes it legitimate as science) but yet not ok with the super natural being science unless you have evidence "of" that super natural entity. So to dismiss the super natural out of science simply because we don’t have evidence "of" it is philosophically unsound and invalid due to the contradiction in reasoning. And since you admit- as shewn by my Kant example- that inferring to a super natural explanation is scientifically ok so long as there is evidence "for" it, that is warranting that inference- (that is a synthetic inference as we both know evidence “of” it would be an analytic one). You cant appeal to either a sound and valid scientific reason nor a philosophical one for your dissent. Which leaves you with the only option of justifying your rejection of the supernatural in science which is trying a theological argument. Ergo, Hunter was right behind the objection is theological bias.Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
lamarck: thanks for stepping in there. I think you summed it up pretty well. Lenoxus:
"Man, I can’t wait for the rise of methodological supernaturalism. "
How much more patently absurd can you get?
"If I wanted, I could describe the laws of physics as “information” or “code”"
Actually no you could not. Demonstrates that you need to understand what coded information is. The laws of physics are not coded information.
"Until “design” becomes a specific, observable, mechanical phenomenon, calling something “designed” seems no different scientifically than calling it .pretty'."
So calling an automobile designed is the same as calling it pretty? You need to take time to think before responding. Also, design detection is already a widely used method in sciences. You're using it here to read these posts. Mechanical phenomena? Well in that case ever heard of statistical mechanics? Look it up. It applies well to the mechanical systems in the genome.
"I’m afraid that the concept has yet to enter mainstream biology even slightly, however. There simply is no evidence that “genetic information” (however we want to define that) experiences some measurable rate of “entropy” over time."
So you're saying biologists have discovered the one and only physical system in the known universe that does not experience entropy? Good luck on that. :-(
"Ultimately, though, evolution is unaffected how “informationally pure” DNA is, so long as the available DNA gets the job done."
No. Evolution IS mutations. Mutations are changes of information. Like making random changes to a sentence changes or adds noise to the meaning. Ex. The dog ran out the door. - Mutated might become: Teh ogd ran out her tood. Really helps communicating the meaning eh? Well genetic info is no different. Genetic info is instructions. Change the instructions and you change the results. Keep changing results and you end up getting gibberish instead of viable proteins for ex. See? Most mutations are near neutral. The inheritable ones accumulate over time - sooner or later that gives an important net loss of information. You have genetic entropy and deleterious mutations in the end.
"I’m now curious what you make of the old evolutionary concept of “selection”. Why, despite all evidence to the contrary, do you think it is actually powerless to filter out those harmful mutations?"
Not what I said. The great majority of mutations aren't even visible to selection. The 'visible' to selection bad ones will indeed tend to be weeded out. The 'visible' to selection good ones will tend to remain - if they survive against the much greater quantity of bad ones. Given enough bad ones plus 1 good one, selection will actually eliminate the good with the bad. That is obvious. The overall net result is not evolution towards more fitness and new organs but devolution towards less fitness and loss of function. The things that cause so many diseases are also the things that make new body plans and organs…?
"Yes, and the substance that we all drink to live can also make us drown."
A very bad analogy indeed, not to mention it misses the point entirely. That's like saying that poisonous food is good even though it can kill you.Borne
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
No offense Icono but I cant seem to find anyhting intelligible in your last post. No offense taken. Perhaps one of the reasons for your confusion is that I'm not talking about bad design and some other arguments that evolutionists may make. My point on this thread is simple, and you're complicating it slightly. I say that the supernatural should be kept out of science because there's no evidence for it, not because of any philosophical or theological principles. I thought what I pointed out in the last post was clear. I do not object to I.D. on philosophical grounds, I just don't think you have any scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology or for supernatural beings of any kind. You say: So my point is your claim that science cannot involve the supernatural is wrong.... Which, I repeat, is not my claim. My claim was that the supernatural should be kept out of science because there's no evidence for it. In other words, if scientific evidence for unicorns, gods or fairies turns up, then we can include them. "Cannot" is your word. To sum up, where we probably agree is that beings for whom there's absolutely no evidence have no place in science. Beings for whom there is evidence can be included. Where we disagree is that you seem to think there is scientific evidence for the involvement of supernatural beings in this world, and I don't. Supposedly, then, we're having a scientific disagreement, not a theological one. Here you say: So the analogy is imperfect- you may be doing some lite faeriology and maybe not- it depends on the evidence and the claims - but to infer an ambiguous designer fallows the rules of science while to posit a faerie for which we have know known evidence does not. Both ambiguous designers and fairies are on the same status in relation to science; fine if you have evidence for them, keep them out if you don't. Has it occurred to you that one of the problems with ambiguous designers is that the evidence for them would also be ambiguous. We wouldn't know if they preferred rocks to slugs, or bacteria to diamonds, what they would want to design or how. Don't claim that that's theology, because ambiguous designers doesn't mean gods. The I.D. movement must get used to people speculating about the designers. Science will not suggest a major mechanism for biology without investigating it. An interesting thing to me about your intelligent designers of life on this planet is that they design on the kind of time scale that naturalistic evolution would require, and they always keep within the parameters of evolutionary possibility. From this, I would infer that they must be actively trying to conceal themselves, and to give everything a natural look. They've certainly fooled tens of thousands of biologists. That speculation is not theology, unless I.D. is religion, and rules out supernatural non-gods (which you, Frost, as a fan of Kant, certainly shouldn't do).iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Iconofid:
If you are an evolutionist, then you are waist deep in theological commitment, and not following the data. Really? If I exclude the role of flower fairies in biology (they were thought to tend plants) because there’s no scientific evidence for that role, or for their existence, am I up to my waist in faireology? And if not, why not?
Hmm, it would be quite a challenge to teach a couple of centuries worth of history of philosophy, theology and science in the comments section of a blog. That I would even need to teach it is a sign of the profound anti intellectualism that rules today. Have you read Christian Wolff, Thomas Burnet, Nicolas Malebranche, John Ray, Ralph Cudworth, Leibniz, Hume, Baden Powell, Joseph Le Conte, ...? These are a smattering of the men whose shoulders you are standing on. Now I'm not saying reading the primary literature from the 17th-19th centuries is absolutely essential. You could rely on the more contemporary evolution literature, it would just be a bit more difficult to see what it going on. In most cases you would be left ignorant of the underlying meaning. But either way, you are never going to understand if you are seeking confirmation rather than knowledge, as most evolutionists do. Like new converts into Scientology, most evolutionists have no idea what they are into. And they're beligerent and condescending in their ignorance, and never seriously engage their own movement. Instead, evolutionists routinely engage in protectionism. If you are an evolutionist, you need to ask yourself: Am I genuinely open to criticism, or even the possibility of evolution being false? If not, no problem. But at least be honest with yourself (and evolution skeptics you speak with) that you have non negotiable, dogmatic, positions. If, on the other hand, you are open to criticism (and feel you have nothing to lose because you're sure evolution is so empirically compelling), then you should have no problem seriously engaging the criticism. Evolutionists rarely demonstrate such a willingness (actually never in my experience). In that case, may I suggest my book Science's Blind Spot. It isn't very long. Or, if you want something on the web, you can look at www.DarwinsPredictions.com.Cornelius Hunter
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Wow. That's some serious pwnage.herb
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
----iconofid: "When people like you [Frost] and Cornelius Hunter imply that “evolutionists” are ignoring the supernatural out of some grand principle or because we are “up to our waists in theology” or that “[ruling] out the supernatural simply because you don’t believe it exists is liken to a theological argument against the existence of God or thereof”, I think you’re mistaken." ----Lewontin: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."StephenB
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Icono wrote, "The reason scientists do not study the anatomy of unicorns is not because of some inbuilt prejudice against them, but because there’s nothing to go on; nothing to study and zero evidence." ID is not about studying the designer- if it was that would get into the theology and once again it is you and I suppose your side that is bringing in the designer (showing Hunter's suspicion as you appeal to the God as evidence of why it is not science instead of the evidence used that might imply God) of which you claim there is no evidence for but at the same time agree with the reasoning of Kant that if ID does have evidence of design in biology then the only known designer would be supernatural and it is ok to infer things of which we cannot cognize if we use the evidence to support the reasoning thereof. It is prejudice against the Designer though- because unlike Unicorns we have good evidence of the designer.Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
No offense Icono but I cant seem to find anyhting intelligible in your last post. Obviously you understand that ID is the theory that design can be detected in biology and the cosmos- and that it kind of rules out Aliens (though Francis Crick did not rule them out in biology via a inference from DNA). So it seems that ID might imply a supernatural designer. Ok we good on that. Now for some reason you can seem to understand why I bring up Kant (which whom you intelligently agreed with) showing that we cannot rule out causes that we cannot see (empiricism). Ok fine- so I ahve explained why ID is good sceince as it sceintifically detects design which in turn might imply a supernatural design - but that is ok because as Kant pointed out we can accept posits that we cannot see or fully cognize. So my point is your claim that science cannot involve the supernatural is wrong- unless of course there is no evidence for it- as in your examples of mystical creatures. I think you are confusing your own analogy of faeries with the subject matter of the supernatural. You see my argument that supernatural cause can be posted if there is evidence is liken to me saying that faeries could be posited if there was evidence. And I would hold this actual beliefs if there was such evidence which of course I am aware of none in this case. If you were then to say that we need to keep faeries out of science despite whether or not there is evidence then in that case you would be holding a beliefs that trumps reason. That belief is essentially one of faith and hence part of your personal philosophy against faeries. So since Hunter thinks that the evidence of deign in biology is obvious you would then have to use arguments of why faeries cant exist this is a branch of theology called apologetics which is about analytical metaphysical of reason of why God or in your case faeries would or would not be a certain way- or could exist. SO the point is Darwinists are going outside of reason and into a realm of argumentation about things like bad design which amount to theological criticisms- such as "why" would the designer build something that falls apart or is not perfect- and theology would answer because original sin caused the evil and degeneracy in the world - etc. But your faeries analogy is not perfect because to say they don't belong is science is different as they are not known to have transcendental infinite abilities- as the designer or God may. It is impossible to rule out a God because he is basically defined as the best of all things- and you cant rule out super naturalism because it is not even a thing but a category of all things great. So the analogy is imperfect- you may be doing some lite faeriology and maybe not- it depends on the evidence and the claims - but to infer an ambiguous designer fallows the rules of science while to posit a faerie for which we have know known evidence does not. So in the original case it is theology to argue why super naturalism cannot be scientific if one appeals to things like bad design and the "why" arguments about the Designer and Hunter is saying those are the ones we always hear when one rules out super or as he calls it supra-natural causes because we think the evidence is indisputable it is just a matter of fine tuning and improving the theory of ID. Darwinists are always neck deep in theology and anti-God flawed reasoning. Certainly God could be behind evolution so why would you rule out a supernatural designer? There is no good reason except for theological beleifes like "God would not have designed this world because it is imperfect." Ultimately we end up debating the evidence and reasoning of ID and its implied supernatural designer- and in the end us IDists are left seeing our opponents reject the theory for theological reasons or unfounded philosophical biases (that probably have closeted theological reasons behind them).Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Frost122585 "Personally I think supernatural is fine to have within science so long as there is evidence. As far as your faeries, where is you evidence of them? IF the evidence is of design then you have evidence of a designer but not what or who that designer is. You arguments are off the mark." I said, further up the thread, that the reason to keep the supernatural out of science is that there isn't any evidence for it. Cornelius Hunter posted something about evolutionists being waist deep in theology. The post you're replying to was my response to this. In what way would I be waist deep in fairiology because I keep fairies out of science because there's no evidence for their existence (as you seem to agree)? You continue, after quoting Kant pointing out that there may well be things the human mind cannot comprehend (something with which I agree): Frost: So to rule out the supernatural simply because you don’t believe it exists is liken to a theological argument against the existence of God or thereof. Which is addressed to me, after I've suggested that we should keep the supernatural out of science because there's no evidence for it, certainly nothing to do with whether any of us choose believe in it or not. The reason scientists do not study the anatomy of unicorns is not because of some inbuilt prejudice against them, but because there's nothing to go on; nothing to study and zero evidence. Now, the claim of I.D. seems to be that it has evidence of intelligent design in biology, and therefore indirect evidence of unknown supernatural beings (the nature of the I.D. arguments tend to rule out natural aliens). If this were the case, then there would no longer be a reason (lack of evidence) for keeping the supernatural out of science. When people like you and Cornelius Hunter imply that "evolutionists" are ignoring the supernatural out of some grand principle or because we are "up to our waists in theology" or that "[ruling] out the supernatural simply because you don’t believe it exists is liken to a theological argument against the existence of God or thereof", I think you're mistaken. It's actually because we don't think you have evidence for intelligent design in biology, and we disagree with the evidence and arguments presented. No theology is required.iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. This seems to be the prevailing assumption -- even among Christians -- regarding the age of the earth.bevets
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Dr Hunter, I’m unaware of any segment of the scientific enterprise that is under the sway of metaphysical naturalism. Srsly? How can you write as you have about evolution then?Nakashima
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
If you read the quote my Kant you would realize that just because we cannot congize something does not mean it does not exist and therefore we cannot rule it out. And as logic attends all reasoning we reason that it is possible to have an acting intelligence that can be inferred but the agent of which cannot be empirically seen. If you have evidence (evidence of acting intelligence) supporting such a synthetic inference, you can than correctly hypothesize about it.Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Hmm, supernatural forces can help out with this debate any time they please, just by showing themselves… hello? Chi energy? Dionysus? Designer? I'm looking at you…Lenoxus
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
So to rule out the supernatural simply because you don't believe it exists is liken to a theological argument against the existence of God or thereof. Some Darwinists will flat out make the theological argument that there is no God and since God is the super natural aqnd ID is the search for God, ID is not science. This confuses the secular scientific argument of ID with a theological argument or debate. You cant define science with theological premises unless you are willing to debate those premises and parameters. We can go back to the old days if you would like and teach theology in public schools but I think your theological biases might lead you to protest.Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
Furthermore, I quote Kant to show the problem with a purely materialist and wholly empirically limited view of scientific inference...
"in obedience to this advice, intellectual hypotheses and faith would not be called in aid of our practical interests; nor should we introduce them under the pompous titles of science and insight. For speculative cognition cannot find an objective basis any other where than in experience; and, when we overstep its limits our synthesis, which requires ever new cognitions independent of experience, has no substratum of intuition upon which to build. But if–as often happens–empiricism, in relation to ideas, becomes itself dogmatic and boldly denies that which is above the sphere of its phenomenal cognition, it falls itself into the error of intemperance–an error which is here all the more reprehensible, as thereby the practical interest of reason receives an irreparable injury.
Ergo, according to Kant you cannot rule out that which you know not of- and if nature points to a designer we may infer just that- not who or what that designer is by that same token- but we can infer and hypothesize that it Is a designer of some being- perhaps as Kant realized a higher being beyond our cognitive abilities.Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Icono, What you need to infer is that by using the term "evolutionist" in that context, Hunter was not referring to scientific inferences but the arguments used by "evolutionists" (which I assume to mean dogmatic Darwinists) use against against an ID inference. The key here is that you were debating the role of supernatural vs supra-natural. Well if what you mean by super natural is an explanation which is incredible than that is fine- no supernaturalism in science. The problem is that IDists think it is very credible to infer design even if you cannot find the designer because there is a logical possibility that that designer could exist in a transdimensional reality- or outside of our physical reality. The big bang theory points to an information wave or source that originates all things- where the information comes from is unknown so speculative hypothesis is that intelligence is transcendental. Einstein believed there were dimensions beyond the ones you know of- IDists believe intelligence can possible go beyond the dimensions we are aware of. So it is a theory- which is based like all theories on presently acting causes, evidence, reasoning, a hypothesis and some predictions such as those concerning the likely hood of of evolutionary events and of there being much junk DNA. Personally I think supernatural is fine to have within science so long as there is evidence. As far as your faeries, where is you evidence of them? IF the evidence is of design then you have evidence of a designer but not what or who that designer is. You arguments are off the mark.Frost122585
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Cornelius Hunter: If you are an evolutionist, then you are waist deep in theological commitment, and not following the data. Really? If I exclude the role of flower fairies in biology (they were thought to tend plants) because there's no scientific evidence for that role, or for their existence, am I up to my waist in faireology? And if not, why not? Is it theology on my part that I think lightning is a natural phenomenon with a natural source, and dismiss the lightning god from my science on the basis that there's no evidence for his role or existence? If you're going to suggest, as I.D. supporters might, that I'm ignoring data that points to intelligent design in biology, then you must remember that I.D. claims to be science, and claims to be able to identify design, but not the designers. So, even if there were such evidence, theology is no more relevant to the discussion than fairiology or elfology. Or are you suggesting that I.D. is a theological viewpoint?iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
Chemists will guide molecular reactions by reciting incantations, biologists will successfully petition the designer to have their fruit flies produce grasshoppers, physicists will observe the effects of colliding angels. It’s going to be awesome.
This is an example of evolution's anti intellectualism. But beware, evolutionists don't corner the market.Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Iconifid:
I can help you with that Lenoxus. The religious premises need to be replaced with scientific ones, like following the data. I’ll take your sentence to mean that the supernatural should be kept out of science [...] I agree.
Not if you are an evolutionist. It is easy to say "I agree." If you are an evolutionist, then you are waist deep in theological commitment, and not following the data.Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
So, how is it then? Is there some segment of the scientific enterprise that has not fallen under the sway of metaphysical naturalism, or is there a segment for which metaphysical naturalism is acceptable, but that doesn’t include evolution in your view?
I'm unaware of any segment of the scientific enterprise that is under the sway of metaphysical naturalism.Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Lenoxus "You say “Mutations… are almost always deleterious and damaging to genetic information”. Depending on the definition of “genetic information”, this could mean a lot of things. I suppose one could argue that all mutations “damage” the genome, even if they help the organism, simply because the genome is different from what it was before. Ultimately, though, evolution is unaffected how “informationally pure” DNA is, so long as the available DNA gets the job done." Read "Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome". Information is gene info which is holding the existing organism together so it can survive. Entropy in this case is order turning into chaos in a system. This doesn't need to be accepted by modern biology, they can just drift off into oblivion if they don't want to confront their own findings which only point in ONE direction, entropy. There is no evidence for what's taught in high school regarding mutations making large changes, so this isn't exactly a "competing theory", it's the only one. Sanford, the author, is one of the top geneticists in the world. The Genome is only losing complex specific information, we see no macro ev, we only see small changes or changes within brackets of larger micro ev. The argument I'll present isn't complete but only read about the book I didn't see a copy at the bookstore. 1. Bad mutations outnumber good 10,000/1. 2. This 10,000 includes near neutral mutations, formerly thought to be neutral but they now make small changes. This is important because all these bad phenotype changes from near neutral mutations swamp (nullify) good phenotype changes, almost always. 3. The net effect is you have the near neutral and bad swamping the good mutations, so the good ones never have any real effect. 4. Keep in mind that most good mutations are so small as to not have any effect on phenotype anyways, so don't even factor most in, further changing this ratio. Also you're going to need large complex specific coordinated mutations to make whole new limbs etc., and this isn't observed. 5. Some do slip through, see nylonese etc, but as predicted, the nylonese gene duplication frameshift mutation was simply a modification of existing structure. 6. And so beneficial mutations are fighting against overwhelming forces against them. 7. So the net effect is any beneficial macro ev will fall apart because the force of good mutations lasting is so weak, given that near silent but bad mutations will last and build up. The whole genome will fall apart is Sanfords conclusion, but I disagree. The genome is programmed it seems so maybe there's a stop loss. Somebody step in and correct me on my interpretation if you want. There's more to it, and I'm sure I have some points wrong, but the core argument is here I think.lamarck
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Man, I can't wait for the rise of methodological supernaturalism. Chemists will guide molecular reactions by reciting incantations, biologists will successfully petition the designer to have their fruit flies produce grasshoppers, physicists will observe the effects of colliding angels. It's going to be awesome.Lenoxus
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
Dr Hunter, It must have been something about those words "the world must have arisen via strictly natural processes". For some reason they made my mind, small as it is, wander over to metaphysical naturalism. So, how is it then? Is there some segment of the scientific enterprise that has not fallen under the sway of metaphysical naturalism, or is there a segment for which metaphysical naturalism is acceptable, but that doesn't include evolution in your view?Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
Here is how I’ve read your fantasy: …evolutionary thought began to emerge in the mid seventeenth century. At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. These schools of thought contributed to what became known as The Enlightenment period in the eighteenth century which marked a major turning point in Western intellectual thought. These positions … incorporated these positions… This new theology made strong commitments … this theology mandated … This paradigm later became known as Evolutionary Thought. Now it is certainly possible I don’t know how to connect antecedents and relative pronouns in English. It is a complicated language! But it seems to me that you start by establishing the beginnings of “evolutionary Thought” with the beginnings of the Enlightenment (not 1859 for sure!). And then you continue a series of “positions” and “committments” to another restatement of Evolutionary Thought as the “paradigm”. So where is the strawman? If you think I’ve misrepresented your argument, say how. [...] Is all science based on a metaphysical naturalist assumption or not?
Where is the strawman? It is here, where you wrote:
Wow! A fantasy in which methodological naturalism is confused with metaphysical naturalism
I suggested you reread the essay, but to no avail. So how does one respond to a strawman? I said nothing of metaphysical naturalism, you say I did, and you provide quotes which say nothing of metaphysical naturalism. You find a message that is not there. Again, this is an excellent example. Evolutionists simply cannot reckon with their religious premises. When those premises are pointed out, evolutionists do not have a category for understanding the criticism. Evolutionists must invert the criticism. Nakashima, the quotes you provide above say nothing about metaphysical naturalism. So let's have a look at what the essay does say:
At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. [...] This new theology made strong commitments in the area of divine intent, action, and interaction with creation. The impact on science was profound as this theology mandated that God's interactions with the world was to be strictly via secondary causes (i.e., natural laws), and that all of history must be governed solely by such causes. This paradigm later became known as Evolutionary Thought. In Evolutionary Thought, science implicitly incorporated these theological and metaphysical commitments. Western, and by now worldwide, thought entered a dark age of anti intellectualism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Evolutionary Thought did not start in 1859. Darwin's religious arguments (and today's evolutionists' religious arguments) were developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. Why to you conflate this uncontroversial history with metaphysical naturalism?Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
In stating that metaphysical naturalism was established in the 1980's, I do not mean to suggest that design thinkers were not persecuted up until that time in the name of naturalism. They were. The point is that the persecution intensified over time and finally became codified as official doctrine about twenty five years ago.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
----Nakashima: "We are discussing the position of Dr Hunter, which is that metaphysical naturalism underlies all science performed since the Enlightenment, and should be called “Evolutionary Thought”. If you dislike the equation of methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and this mislabelling, take it up as I have with Dr Hunter." In fact, I don't disagree with Dr. Hunter at all. Indeed, I would make the point even more forcefully. The only difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism is that the latter world view provides plausible deniability for atheists and atheist sympathizers who would prefer not to show their hand. Otherwise, both approach science in exactly the same way and both facilitate anti-ID partisanship with uncompromising force and reckless disregard for the facts. ----Nakashima: has your DOGMA suddenly become a ‘rule’? Please tell me you’ve given up on the absurdity of trying to paint science as a religion that so obsesses some people." Yes, it has. As I pointed out, methodological naturalism was established in the 1980's. It can hardly be synonymous with science, as you would have it, because prior to that time, while naturalistic bias was certainly presen, as Dr. Hunter makes clear, it had not yet been established as an institutionalized dogma. Consult our FAQ section on methodological naturalism, which I think is covered in questions 17 and 18. For my part, I would characterize MN as a dogmatic metaphysical presupposition, but I have no problem with those who describe it as a religion due to its exceedingly dogmatic formulation and its zealous enforcement.StephenB
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Dr Hunter, Here is how I've read your fantasy: ...evolutionary thought began to emerge in the mid seventeenth century. At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. These schools of thought contributed to what became known as The Enlightenment period in the eighteenth century which marked a major turning point in Western intellectual thought. These positions ... incorporated these positions... This new theology made strong commitments ... this theology mandated ... This paradigm later became known as Evolutionary Thought. Now it is certainly possible I don't know how to connect antecedents and relative pronouns in English. It is a complicated language! But it seems to me that you start by establishing the beginnings of "evolutionary Thought" with the beginnings of the Enlightenment (not 1859 for sure!). And then you continue a series of "positions" and "committments" to another restatement of Evolutionary Thought as the "paradigm". So where is the strawman? If you think I've misrepresented your argument, say how. Did Evolutionary Thought start in the mid seventeenth century or not? Is all science based on a metaphysical naturalist assumption or not? Is all such science Evolutionary Thought?Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Folks:
We are discussing the position of Dr Hunter, which is that metaphysical naturalism underlies all science performed since the Enlightenment, and should be called “Evolutionary Thought”. If you dislike the equation of methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and this mislabelling, take it up as I have with Dr Hunter.
This is a good case study. Most evolutionists are in denial about their own religious premises. When you point it out they invert your point and set up a strawman to knock down. What we are seeing here is typical. Note that skeptics sometimes do the same to evolutionists. The lesson here is to *listen* to what the critic is saying and address it head on, rather than respond to something you would have liked him to say. That is a sign of weakness (which you can see in spades amongst the evolutionists -- e.g.: ID is creationism).Cornelius Hunter
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Mr StephenB, Why are you sticking tags like [methodological naturalism] on quotations? We are discussing the position of Dr Hunter, which is that metaphysical naturalism underlies all science performed since the Enlightenment, and should be called "Evolutionary Thought". If you dislike the equation of methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and this mislabelling, take it up as I have with Dr Hunter. has your DOGMA suddenly become a 'rule'? Please tell me you've given up on the absurdity of trying to paint science as a religion that so obsesses some people.Nakashima
June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply